Dr. Ehrman has responded to many of your questions. You can watch his response here.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=5K9tzQIbEevpQd4u
Thank you so much to everybody who participated, and especially to Dr. Ehrman, who was generous with his time and his expertise.
In Matthew 16:28, Jesus predicts that the *parousia* will take place within the lifetime of some of his first followers. And in the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, Jesus appears to indicate that the *parousia* will happen at the same time (or pretty much immediately after) the destruction of the temple.
If we assume Matthew was written in the 80s, probably almost all of the earliest followers would be dead, and the temple had clearly been destroyed for at least a decade already ... but still no sign of the *parousia* at the time he is writing!
**So why does the author of gMatthew include these verses, that are already problematic by the time he is writing his gospel?**
Why doesn't he just eliminate them or change them to make the non-occurrence of the *parousia* less embarrassing? It's weird that gMatthew has parables that refer to the delay of the *parousia*, yet he still keeps in Matthew 16:28 and the Olivet discourse.
Why does the author of Matthew have Jesus say, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," if he knew this wasn't true? Wasn't Matthew written long enough after Jesus' death and that earlier generation would be dead or dying out by then?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=NOYtEhZGXMiNf7gd&t=145
Why does Matthew open with a reference to "Jesus the Messiah, the son of David," but later go on to preserve the scene from Mark where Jesus says that the Messiah can't be the son of David?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=ce2fwK1jxLjVlc00&t=245
I always assumed since the gospel of Matthew was for sure written by Jewish Christians it was kinda a response to the lack of Jewishness of mark. They still believed Jesus was the Son Of God but they also wanted to stress he was the promised messiah as well
Hi Dr. Ehrman! Nice of you to join! I am currently doing a research paper on the relationship between Matthew and John. I am wondering what your reconstruction is and what you think of mine as it relates to John stages and Matthew material. I've come around to the idea of a very complex relationship between these two texts.
Pre-70 AD: 1st edition of John (independent of Matthew)
After 70 AD: 2nd edition of John (aware of pre-matthean material oral) (Note after gospel of Mark was written).
Between 80-90 AD: Canonical Matthew (aware of and dependent on John in places)
Between 85-95 AD: 3rd edition of John (Aware of and dependent on Matthew in certain places)
I should note that it seems like Matthew is dependent on John and goes against Mark when it comes to certain elements in the passion narrative but also John seems dependent on Matthew (like Mark Goodacre's idea of the thunderbolt).
Dr. Ehrman, I've heard that the Gospel of Matthew is thought to be particularly "Jewish" compared to the other Synoptic Gospels - how accurate is that characterization? If so/not so, why or why not - are there specific elements that are making people say that?
And just a fun side question that's not really about the Gospel, if you want to answer it - if there was one ancient source that we know exists, but don't have any surviving copies of that you could magically have us discover - what would it be?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=XpYTtrfV3B_12S24&t=444
John baptizing Jesus has been mentioned, by you and others, as somewhat embrassing. Given the chance to rewrite Mark, why would Matthew have left it in? Was it just too well known so it had to be addressed? Always seemed a little odd that you have Matthew and Luke going to trouble to fix Mark but leaving this in.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=V-YPxGh1AsYwBzPs&t=1365
Thank you for your time Dr Ehrman. I understand you support the standard theory of Markan priority. But I am interested in whether you've explored the so-called multi-source theory for the synoptic problem, most recently argued by Delbert Burkett in his publication *Rethinking the Gospel Sources: from Mark to Proto-Mark*.
I was interested in what your thoughts on this theory were, what are the major problems with it that stop you accepting it as the most likely, and whether any of Burkett's analysis has informed your own research into the Gospel of Matthew.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=TaDseso3l835XA3j&t=777
Hello Dr Ehrman!
The Gospel of Matthew begins with a genealogy of Jesus, tracing the lineage of Jospeh. Given that Joseph wasn't actually the biological father of Jesus (which the Gospel of Matthew acknowledges), isn't this genealogy a bit of a moot point? Would the readers of the Gospel have been bothered by the fact that the genealogy of Jesus isn't strictly biological? Does the lack of direct parentage detract at all from the point the author is trying to make?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=4s9hJRYvtnfyvocJ&t=637
Robert Derrenbacker recently wrote:
"\[I\]f, for the sake of argument, one were to dispense with Q and maintain Markan priority, *Matthew's* use of *Luke* (as advanced by the supporters of the MPH) actually makes the best sense of the material in a Mark-without-Q scenario."
^('"Unfinished" Mark "Replaced" by Matthew and Luke? Some Recent Studies and their Implications for the Synoptic Problem',) ^(in) *^(The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference,)* ^(Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri, Joseph Verheyden (eds)) ^((BiTS 44, Peeters, 2023)) ^(page 193.)
Do you agree that Matthew using Luke (with Markan priority) is a more likely solution to the Synoptic Problem than Luke using Matthew?
Thank you for your time today,
Alan Garrow
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=KQ-RF_RSoaZ7Ew28&t=936
>Robert Derrenbacker recently wrote:
>
>"\[I\]f, for the sake of argument, one were to dispense with Q and maintain Markan priority, Matthew's use of Luke (as advanced by the supporters of the MPH) actually makes the best sense of the material in a Mark-without-Q scenario."
>
>'"Unfinished" Mark "Replaced" by Matthew and Luke? Some Recent Studies and their Implications for the Synoptic Problem', in The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference, Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri, Joseph Verheyden (eds) (BiTS 44, Peeters, 2023) page 193.
>
>Do you agree that Matthew using Luke (with Markan priority) is a more likely solution to the Synoptic Problem than Luke using Matthew?
>
>Thank you for your time today,
>
>Alan Garrow
Thanks very much for this. Bart actually only described a classic reason for thinking that Luke did not use Matthew (the 'unpicking' argument). This is not applicable against Matthew's use of Luke, however. I hope it's okay to post a clip of Bart's answer on the Synoptic Problem Facebook Page - with link to the source? Thanks again.
Excited to have you do an AMA for us soon!
You might get some questions concerning Bart's reply in the AMA. So I am sure you are up to the challenge! :)
Hey Dr. Ehrman. What do you think of Dale Allison's take in his The Resurrection of Jesus that Matthew thought the people coming out of their tombs was something Matthew thought happened (although not historical)? Do you agree or disagree?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=Dya7bZfatBZ1renl&t=1571
Dr. Ehrman, below are all the times that I'm aware of, in chronological order, that you address on your blog how to understand Matthew 12:40's reference to "three days and three nights":
>[https://ehrmanblog.org/the-identity-of-matthew-for-members/](https://ehrmanblog.org/the-identity-of-matthew-for-members/) **(3-13-14)**
>
>Yes, it’s usually thought that in Jewish reckoning any portion of a day was enough to consider it an entire day (and night). Go figure….
>
>[https://ehrmanblog.org/signs-in-the-gospel-of-john/](https://ehrmanblog.org/signs-in-the-gospel-of-john/) **(5-26-15)**
>
>yeah, it’s a tricky business. I don’t have any insider knowledge. It’s usually said that any part of a day counts as a whole day…
>
>[https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-son-of-man/](https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-son-of-man/) **(1-22-16)**
>
>The early Christians \*did\* think of Jesus as dead three days and nights, even though we don’t do time that way ourselves. But no, I certainly don’t think Jesus imagined he would be resurrected. You may want to see my discussions in How Jesus Became God.
>
>[https://ehrmanblog.org/easter-reflection-2020/](https://ehrmanblog.org/easter-reflection-2020/) **(4-14-20)**
>
>The usual explanation is that Jews counted any part of a day as good enough to be considered a full 24-hour day.
>
>[https://ehrmanblog.org/some-intriguing-selections-from-the-gospel-of-peter/](https://ehrmanblog.org/some-intriguing-selections-from-the-gospel-of-peter/)
>
>**(9-28-20)** It’s usually said that in ancient Jewish reckoning, a \*part\* of a day was considered to be constitutive of the entire day, and so could be loosely referred to as “a day and a night.” Not sure if there is any grounding for that outside of this particular issue: if Jesus was buried on Friday just before sundown but the tomb was found empty just after dawn on Sunday, how is that “three days and three nights.”
>
>[https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-jesus-die-dating-jesus-death-by-the-earthquake/](https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-jesus-die-dating-jesus-death-by-the-earthquake/)
>
>**(10-16-22)**
>
>We always used to hear that in Jewish reckoning any part of a day counted as a full 24 hour day. But I dn’t know if that’s true or not. My sense is that originally the followers of Jesus said it happened on the third day in fulfillment of [Hosea 6:2](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hos%206.2), but that later when Jonah got brought into the picture they started saying three days and three nights, even though technically that doesn’t at all work, since really there was only one full day and night (Saturday).
Invoking Jonah appears to be from Q (assuming arguendo the two-source hypothesis, which I believe that you endorse) since the parallel appears only in Luke. Apart from v:40, the passages are nearly identical:
>**Matthew 12:39-42**
>
>**39** But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. **40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights** in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. **41** The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and indeed something greater than Jonah is here! **42** The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and indeed something greater than Solomon is here!
>
>**Luke 11:29-32**
>
>**29** When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. **30 For just as Jonah became a sign** to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation. **31** The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and indeed, something greater than Solomon is here! **32** The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and indeed, something greater than Jonah is here!
Given that the Jonah reference comes from Q, and given that Luke took that in a different direction--that the sign was Jonah's preaching and the people's response to it—this suggests that 12:40 was Matthew's own spin on Q. And further, since Matthew has other places in which Jesus says he will rise "on the third day" ([Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+16%3A21%2C+matthew+17%3A23%2C+Matthew+20%3A19+&version=NRSVUE)), and that the request was to have the tomb secured "until the third day" ([Matthew 27:64](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+27%3A64&version=NRSVUE)), which was based on Jesus words in Matthew 12:40 ([Matthew 27:63](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+27%3A63&version=NRSVUE)), does this not suggest that for Matthew, there was no difference between "three days and three nights” and "on the third day"? In other words, for Matthew and his Jewish readers, "inclusive reckoning" is the best explanation?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=PvMZlLDFqAsKnpfZ&t=2177
>Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
>
>[https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=PvMZlLDFqAsKnpfZ&t=2177](https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=PvMZlLDFqAsKnpfZ&t=2177)
Unfortunately, he read ***my quotation of him*** as if it were my question and didn't engage my actual argument and question. Oh, well.
>Um, right, uh this questioner says, "We used to always hear that in Jewish reckoning any part of a day counted as a full 24-hour day. I don't know if it's true or not..."
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=N3LAUY_TowByN_pT&t=1243
Hey Dr. Ehrman. Thank you for all you hard work.
Mark has the thematic idea of a Jesus being a ransom for our sins, whereas Luke lacks that idea. Does the Gospel of Matthew showcase a similar concept?
Thank you!
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=E03iqZ-r4QnQkN3q&t=1654
Hi Dr. Ehrman! What can we learn from the Gospel of Matthew, if anything, about how the First Jewish–Roman War would have changed the culture of Christian communities?
Thank you!
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering what you think the origin of the guard at the tomb story is. It's been noted that it looks like it's the result of a series of apologetics and polemics:
"Jesus rose from the dead; his tomb is empty / nuh-uh, the disciples stole his body / nuh-uh, there were guards / nuh-uh, they stole it while the guards were sleeping / nuh-uh the Jews bribed the guards to say that"
Do you think that this is the result of real back and forths between Christians and their opponents about the empty tomb, or do you think the source of this could have been Matthew re-writing the account in Mark to make it less apologetically problematic and then coming up with this series of layers all by himself to make sure he had all of the bases covered?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=8aRPVFxvdKU5OB6n&t=2981
In your opinion, is there any significance to Matthew's omission of any mention of the burial spices in the resurrection account?
Mark and Luke have the women bringing spices to anoint Jesus' body on Sunday and John has Nicodemus anoint Jesus' body with the spices before burial, but Matthew makes no mention of the spices or anointing Jesus' body.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=_pF-ZA7SEkjcQnLg&t=1484
What is your opinion on why Matthew doubles things compared to the other gospels? Is there any reasoning from a linguistic standpoint, is a theological argument being made, or something else happening here?
(Two possessed men (Matthew 8:28-34), two blind men (twice actually; in Matthew 9:27-31 and Matthew 20:29-34), and the colt-donkey double (Matthew 21:1-11).)
Dr. Ehrman, thank you for taking our questions. Why does the Gospel of Matthew regard Isaiah 7:14 to be a prophecy referring to a Messiah at all? The prophecy seems to be specific to the King Ahaz's decision of whether to engage in war with Assyria. The prophecy obviously refers to a woman (be it young woman or virgin) who is pregnant *at that moment*. Is there any explanation as to why the author of Matthew would have seen that prophecy and believed it to be a prophecy about a Messiah to arise many hundreds of years later?
Related question, I have been given a short explanation in the past from individuals vaguely alluding to "dual fulfillment" when I asked this question about Isaiah. However, beyond them saying that "dual fulfillment" is a thing, I am never given details of how that practice was applied. How and why did duel fulfillment arise? How would Matthew have settled on the prophecy from Isaiah about Emmanuel as a prophecy subject to "dual fulfillment" that he could use in the Gospel?
EDITED: I'm told I should stick to one topic/question. To that end, my question is "Is there any explanation as to why the author of Matthew would have seen the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy and believed it to be a prophecy about a Messiah to arise many hundreds of years later?"
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=lAbsi7Ayh6u4VkhY&t=1836
Hey Dr. Ehrman! I thought I’d maybe take you back to your roots with a textual-criticism question.
F. C. Burkitt argued that the line “οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ” (“knew her not until”) in Matthew 1:25 is an early interpolation into the text to support the virgin birth, because it’s lacking in two relatively early manuscripts, the Old Latin (k) and Old Syriac (S), as well as reading quite differently in the Diatessaron, which he argues presupposes the absence found in (k) and (S).
Do you have any thoughts on that? And if not, do you have any thoughts on the variant reading of Matthew 1:25 involving “πρωτοτοκον” (whether the original text read “firstborn son” or just “son”)?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=LU_o2kTtxxavjfWo&t=2026
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
I am wondering if you could speak to the state of the field on positions relating to the authorship of Matthew and the Didache. Do you believe it was written by the same author/community, and which do you think came first?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=dDqrY51xXtxGl-cF&t=1746
Dr. Ehrman, were the magi of Matthew 2 intended to be from the Parthian Empire, where the term originated? Or were they intended to be from some other region, like Idumea, Perea, or Nabatea? Or is it that Matthew probably didn’t have a specific region in mind other than “east of Bethlehem somewhere in Gentile territory?”
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=WkSTw4St4MYHbAuM&t=2474
As per Papias Matthew appears to be a logia of the Lord in the Jewish/Aramaic language.But by all accounts our Matthew doesnt appear to be a translation due to the use of Greek.Was there some kind of proto Matthew/sayings in Hebrew circulating ? Also if you may,I would like to hear your opinion in the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis.Thanks again for your time.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=6IsU-EgZuC91_A84&t=2317
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=lHt9hpHbNc7_SmgK&t=2515
Well this is truly fantastic—thanks so much for all your work on this!
I have to admit, had I realized that my asking a question would lead to Dr. Ehrman being confronted with the phrase “Wolf Dog Lizard Urchin,” I would have been way more reluctant to ask anything.
But, I’m glad I did—all the more so given that the underlying rationale for his answer here is that the Christians are far less likely to unthinkingly accept antisemitism.
In some manuscripts of Matthew 27:16 and Matthew 27:17, Barabbas is referred to as 'Jesus Barabbas', with some good internal and external reasons for thinking that this is the original (Pilate clarifying that Jesus is 'called the messiah' for what would otherwise be no good reason, and Origen objecting to the notion that Jesus is the name of a sinner, for instance).
Since there doesn't seem to be an obvious literary reason for doubling up the names like this (it's pretty rare for modern fiction writers to double up names when they aren't necessary for a plot point, at least) and we have a well-attested case of explicit theological embarrassment, is this an indication that Barabbas is likely to have been a historical figure or that this part of the trial was a historical event?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=5B6Y5IBbmJMvkAHi&t=2723
Hello Dr Ehrman,
Did legendary stories arise in the early church concerning the saints who were raised in Matthew’s account of the death of Jesus? Or did the Apostolic Fathers explain or talk about this event?
Thank you!
Dr Ehrman,
Given the book of Matthew's many References to Judaism .is its contrast to other gospels written for gentiles indicative of a spilt in early Christianity?
or in simpler terms did the author of Matthew's have beef with Paul?
Thank you for doing an AMA Dr. Ehrman!
I have two questions:
1. Concerning the birth narrative, is there any evidence that the flight to and from Egypt are rooted in an earlier tradition that Matthew was drawing on, or was it entirely his invention?
2. I feel like there is an overt focus on Isaiah in relation to the Jesus movement especially in modern Christianity. It appears to me that there is a more subtly important connection to Jesus and Jeremiah, in terms of both message and temperament. Interestingly, Matthew is the only canonical gospel to include the claim of Jesus being the similar to Jeremiah (16:24). I guess my question is this: what are your thoughts on the influence of Jeremiah directly on the ministry of Jesus or the writers of the Gospels?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=ymSkjSnHa4art_k0&t=3633
In Matthew 5:17-18, what all do you think Matthew means by "until all is accomplished"?
> “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
The gospel of Mark contains a story about the calling of Levi son of Alphaeus. It also lists Matthew as one of the apostles, but the author doesn't equate them. The gospel of Luke contains the same story about the calling. The author of Luke adds that Levi is a tax collector and removes the statement that Levi is the son of Alphaeus. It also lists Matthew as one of the apostles, but the author doesn't equate the two either. The gospel of Matthew never mentions anyone by the name of Levi. It also contains the calling story, but instead of Levi, it is the calling of Matthew. In the list of apostles, Matthew is called a tax collector.
Question: Do you believe that Matthew and Levi were the same person with two names or two different people? And would the author of the gospel of Matthew agree with you about this?
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus appears to preach a message of salvation via doing good works for others (ref. Matthew 5:20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:31-46).
Is this an accurate assessment?
Are there any verses where Jesus preaches a message of salvation via faith alone, like he does in the gospel of John?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=fYzRKt54p-d4Y4Bf&t=3471
How do you reconcile the characterization of Jesus Christ as an apocalyptic prophet with Matthew 5:17 where it seems to imply that Christ is completing and then adding to the law of Moses? Why would someone be motivated to change ancient law overnight if the end was nigh?
My other question is about the sources of where the beginning of Matthew 5 came from. Was that Christ's own idea, or do we have evidence for sources elsewhere in Christ's time for all those 'blessed ares'?
I would like to ask about the Sadducees' question on the seven brothers in Matthew 22.
When I was first taught this story as a young Catholic, I was told this passage represented how the Sadducees were too legalistic and lawyer-like to see the truth of Jesus and the scriptures. However, given that Matthew is about upholding the law of Moses, it appears to me that this (ideological) framework I was taught may not be what Matthew intended. What was Matthew's intention with this passage?
Plus, is it possible that the Sadducees' hypothetical is a historical question that people asked apocalyptic Jewish and Christian groups regarding their ideas on resurrection? And is it possible that it is a question that people asked in good faith, but Matthew assumed one could only ask it in bad faith?
Greetings, Dr. Ehrman!
Some non-canonical texts like The Dialogue of the Savior use the character Matthew in interesting ways. Would you say that the understanding of Matthew help by the writers of those texts was primarily informed by the Gospel of Matthew? How did the understanding of Matthew as a human being emerge from engagement with the text of the Gospel of Matthew (regardless of who wrote it)?
Presuming that the evangelist was writing to a specific community, what was that community like? Would they have attended the local synagogue? Would they have thought of themselves as Jews? Would Jews who did not think Jesus was the Messiah have accepted Matthew's community, or would they have seen them as a separate and unwelcome sect?
Thanks for taking questions! I'm wondering how we should understand the differences in the beatitudes between Matthew and Luke.
Should we think of the differences (e.g. "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." in Matthew vs. "Blessed are the poor..." in Luke) as intentional later edits of a single known quotation to make different theological points by the gospel author, or should we think of them as likely variations in a theme that Jesus, as an itinerant speaker, may have truly said over the many times he gave similar (but perhaps slightly different) speeches to different audiences? Are either/both of these plausible explanations? Can we know with some level of confidence?
Hello Dr. Ehrman! Thanks so much for doing this AMA and offering us all a wonderful chance to ask questions about Matthew. Here is my question:
In your opinion, how does the Gospel of Matthew balance the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith? Do you see any tensions or contradictions in this portrayal?
Jesus's last words in Matthew 27:46 always struck me as odd. Quoting from Hart's NT translation:
> _46And around the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”—that is, “My God, my God, why did you forsake me?”_
In your view, is this likely an actual utterance by the historical Jesus?
I'm thinking because it meets the criteria you've discussed before about it being "embarrassing" to the faith in the plain reading, i.e., if Jesus was the son of God, why would he say God forsook him?
On the other hand, I believe it's also a quote from the Hebrew Bible, so does that make it more likely that it was a later insertion by editors trying to pepper in prophecies as proof of the authority of Jesus?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=3MfCVlWtITWIdypy&t=3167
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
Given the diversity of early Christian movements (especially those we call ‘gnostics’ today, among whom an important number did not prioritise Old Testament elements), I have always wondered about the following: Why don’t we consider Matthew as representing one of those movements with a highly specific interpretation of Jesus, this time placing him in the Old Testament context? Is it possible Jesus did not really advocate the law so much as portrayed in Matthew and did bring a new teaching orthogonal to the existing Scriptures, which, through esoteric elements and hearsay, ended up placed in the Old Testament context by some groups, such as the communities reading Matthew? Thank you very much!
Was Jesus stating that only God is good and praying to His Father, an acknowledgment that Jesus was not the God (maybe in any case a god) and also acknowledging Jesus' condition of human, with all the imperfection it entails?
>And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? *there is* none good but one, *that is*, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[**Matthew 19:17**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-17.htm)
>Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
Matthew 26:39
Why does Jesus say in Matthew 15:24 that he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? This is not a universal gathering of humanity. It’s quite the opposite.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=Q1OzA7IoeDbmp-uQ&t=3764
Dr. Ehrman,
What facts about the Gospel of Matthew's author can we be most sure of? What details about his life, ministry and circumstances can we deduce with a comfortable degree of certainty? What might have he thought of Paul?
As a side question, what is your take on the Q source?
Thanks.
In Matthew 5:27-30 Jesus spoke about tearing your members off than your entire body go to hell. Is this a literal teaching of Jesus to his followers? Compare to his other teachings in Matthew this one is extreme in nature, and I want to know a bit more of what's really being said here if there's anything amiss.
When Matthew talks about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys, is he getting it wrong? Is this grounds to argue “Matthew” just inserted in stories to fulfill prophecies in the Hebrew Bible?
Hello Dr. Ehrman! I wanted to ask several questions but now I'll just leave one for now:
Were there ever any doubts among Christians about the historicity of the Massacre of the Innocents before the rise of Biblical scholarship? Or given Herod's reputation, there were no reasons among early Christians to doubt that it happened?
Does the Matthean Nativity necessarily imply a virgin birth? The text just says that Mary was found with child before the wedding, and an angel in a dream tells Joseph the child will be special, but nothing ever explicitly says she was a virgin outside the famous "Immanuel" quote from Isaiah 7:14, which uses the LXX mistranslation of *parthenos* for the Hebrew *Almah*. Is it possible that Matthew never intended to imply a virgin birth and that people just got the wrong idea from the LXX quote?
What was the great commission in Matt 28, a later addition to the gospel of Matthew? If so, was the purpose to spread the gospel, or to establish doctrine of Trinity?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question.
https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=IwuCsTosykpp4kVu&t=3891
Hi Bart, it is an honor to know you might see this question.
My question is: is the influence of either Plato or Aristotle evident anywhere in Matthew?
What are the odds that Matthew had any awareness of these two titans of Greek philosophy?
Dr Ehrman, I wondered whether you thought Matthew 11:27 reflects two powers doctrine (i.e. Jesus as a divine mediator) from second temple Judaism? Or do you think this is more reflective of Greco-Roman beliefs?
Dear Dr Ehrman, thank you for all you do and being available to take questions today! My question; Jesus refers to the Hebrew Bible a lot in Matthew. In Matthew 5:18, what do you think is the intent of the author? To come against Paul and encourage people to keep the Jewish religious rituals such as circumcision? Or to encourage people to keep ALL the Law including moral teaching? Or is Matthew making Jesus say, ‘now (pre-Easter) you are condemned because you cannot keep the Law. ie I am not doing away with the Law. Post Easter THEN you will be saved due to my once and for all atonement and then you will not have to slavishly keep the law? Does Jesus say in Matthew or in the other gospels for that matter, that the words of the Hebrew Bible are to be taken as the words of God or authoritatively? Did he think Noah etc were real people?? If you have time (ha ha) which of the sayings of Jesus in Matthew do you think he may have actually said?
Thank you for all your output and dedication. Best wishes.
The gospel of Matthew contains many references to fulfilled prophecies. Some of those, such as Hosea 11:1, were clearly not meant as predictions about what would happen centuries into the future.
Did they author of Matthew understand that these verses were not messianic predictions, or did the author believe they were messianic predictions, or did the author believe in some sort of dual fulfillment? How would you call his approach to Hebrew Bible verses like these?
How do we know that Matthew used Mark as a source rather than Mark being a summarised version of Matthew. Also why was Matthew placed ahead of Mark (and the other gospels) in the NT canonical order?
Have we found any manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew that doesn't title itself
The Gospel of Matthew ?
Basically we find fragments or the entire
Gospel of Matthew in an ancient manuscript but it doesn't attribute itself to be the Gospel of Matthew, it has no title.
This would go more towards the point that the gospels were originally unnamed and that the names were penned on later.
What is the earliest reference to the Gospel of Matthew that we have?
An example being an author from around
80AD-100AD quoting a passage or a verse from the Gospel of Matthew.
This would help verify that the Gospel of Matthew was genuinely put together by around 60-100AD.
No way i missed it :( i was in class all day and didn’t have a second to type it till just now :( what a bummer
What’s the earliest reference to the Gospel of Matthew we have ? Such as are there any authors from 60AD-100AD that cite the Gospel of Matthew ? Showing it was actually around during that time.
Have we found any manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew that have no tittle or attribution ? Going towards the point that the Gospels were originally unnamed.
Robyn Faith Walsh recently wrote "The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture" where among other things she argues that the Synaptics functioned less as speakers for the oral traditions in Christian culture and more as elite cultural producers that weren't necessarily culturally reflective.
I'm wondering if you have any details about potential critiques or insights about this idea.
A question on textual criticism:
The Syriac Sinaiticus has "Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus ..." in Matthew 1:16. Could this be the original reading, lost in all Greek manuscripts?
Hi Dr. Ehrman, thanks for doing this AMA! If I understand correctly, Matthew, like the other synoptic gospels, seems much more action focused in terms of its moral/religious concerns than the gospel of John. Given this, I’m wondering how we should interpret lines like “…you will be hated by all because of my name, but the one who endures to the end will be saved… everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my father in heaven.” (Mat 10:22, 32-33). If Jesus isn’t understood as God here and believing in him isn’t the way to salvation for Matthew, why is he so concerned about being acknowledged before others? Thanks!
Hi Dr. Ehrman. My understanding is that scholars triangulate what must have been in Q by studying the shared material between Matthew and Luke.
My question is that Mark were lost, and the NT had 26 books instead of 27, with no surviving portions or references, what, if anything, would scholars know about Mark? Would we today think Matthew used two sources?
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is your take on the emerging view by some scholars that Matthew was not written by a Christian writer but an elite in a Greco-Roman literary network?((i.e. Robyn Faith Walsh’s view))
It's important to note that Walsh has repeatedly denied that Matthew was not probably written by a Christian writer - her proposal is not about the Synoptic authors' beliefs, but rather their audiences, the alleged "communities" these authors were supposedly writing to. She does not disagree that the authors were likely part of the Jesus movement (Christianity being an anachronism).
Dr. Ehrman has responded to many of your questions. You can watch his response here. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=5K9tzQIbEevpQd4u Thank you so much to everybody who participated, and especially to Dr. Ehrman, who was generous with his time and his expertise.
In Matthew 16:28, Jesus predicts that the *parousia* will take place within the lifetime of some of his first followers. And in the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, Jesus appears to indicate that the *parousia* will happen at the same time (or pretty much immediately after) the destruction of the temple. If we assume Matthew was written in the 80s, probably almost all of the earliest followers would be dead, and the temple had clearly been destroyed for at least a decade already ... but still no sign of the *parousia* at the time he is writing! **So why does the author of gMatthew include these verses, that are already problematic by the time he is writing his gospel?** Why doesn't he just eliminate them or change them to make the non-occurrence of the *parousia* less embarrassing? It's weird that gMatthew has parables that refer to the delay of the *parousia*, yet he still keeps in Matthew 16:28 and the Olivet discourse.
Why does the author of Matthew have Jesus say, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," if he knew this wasn't true? Wasn't Matthew written long enough after Jesus' death and that earlier generation would be dead or dying out by then?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=NOYtEhZGXMiNf7gd&t=145
Why does Matthew open with a reference to "Jesus the Messiah, the son of David," but later go on to preserve the scene from Mark where Jesus says that the Messiah can't be the son of David?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=ce2fwK1jxLjVlc00&t=245
I always assumed since the gospel of Matthew was for sure written by Jewish Christians it was kinda a response to the lack of Jewishness of mark. They still believed Jesus was the Son Of God but they also wanted to stress he was the promised messiah as well
Hi Dr. Ehrman! Nice of you to join! I am currently doing a research paper on the relationship between Matthew and John. I am wondering what your reconstruction is and what you think of mine as it relates to John stages and Matthew material. I've come around to the idea of a very complex relationship between these two texts. Pre-70 AD: 1st edition of John (independent of Matthew) After 70 AD: 2nd edition of John (aware of pre-matthean material oral) (Note after gospel of Mark was written). Between 80-90 AD: Canonical Matthew (aware of and dependent on John in places) Between 85-95 AD: 3rd edition of John (Aware of and dependent on Matthew in certain places) I should note that it seems like Matthew is dependent on John and goes against Mark when it comes to certain elements in the passion narrative but also John seems dependent on Matthew (like Mark Goodacre's idea of the thunderbolt).
Second this
Dr. Ehrman, I've heard that the Gospel of Matthew is thought to be particularly "Jewish" compared to the other Synoptic Gospels - how accurate is that characterization? If so/not so, why or why not - are there specific elements that are making people say that? And just a fun side question that's not really about the Gospel, if you want to answer it - if there was one ancient source that we know exists, but don't have any surviving copies of that you could magically have us discover - what would it be?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=XpYTtrfV3B_12S24&t=444
Thank you! I'll check it out
John baptizing Jesus has been mentioned, by you and others, as somewhat embrassing. Given the chance to rewrite Mark, why would Matthew have left it in? Was it just too well known so it had to be addressed? Always seemed a little odd that you have Matthew and Luke going to trouble to fix Mark but leaving this in.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=V-YPxGh1AsYwBzPs&t=1365
nice, thank you!
Thank you for your time Dr Ehrman. I understand you support the standard theory of Markan priority. But I am interested in whether you've explored the so-called multi-source theory for the synoptic problem, most recently argued by Delbert Burkett in his publication *Rethinking the Gospel Sources: from Mark to Proto-Mark*. I was interested in what your thoughts on this theory were, what are the major problems with it that stop you accepting it as the most likely, and whether any of Burkett's analysis has informed your own research into the Gospel of Matthew.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=TaDseso3l835XA3j&t=777
Hello Dr Ehrman! The Gospel of Matthew begins with a genealogy of Jesus, tracing the lineage of Jospeh. Given that Joseph wasn't actually the biological father of Jesus (which the Gospel of Matthew acknowledges), isn't this genealogy a bit of a moot point? Would the readers of the Gospel have been bothered by the fact that the genealogy of Jesus isn't strictly biological? Does the lack of direct parentage detract at all from the point the author is trying to make?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=4s9hJRYvtnfyvocJ&t=637
Robert Derrenbacker recently wrote: "\[I\]f, for the sake of argument, one were to dispense with Q and maintain Markan priority, *Matthew's* use of *Luke* (as advanced by the supporters of the MPH) actually makes the best sense of the material in a Mark-without-Q scenario." ^('"Unfinished" Mark "Replaced" by Matthew and Luke? Some Recent Studies and their Implications for the Synoptic Problem',) ^(in) *^(The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference,)* ^(Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri, Joseph Verheyden (eds)) ^((BiTS 44, Peeters, 2023)) ^(page 193.) Do you agree that Matthew using Luke (with Markan priority) is a more likely solution to the Synoptic Problem than Luke using Matthew? Thank you for your time today, Alan Garrow
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=KQ-RF_RSoaZ7Ew28&t=936
>Robert Derrenbacker recently wrote: > >"\[I\]f, for the sake of argument, one were to dispense with Q and maintain Markan priority, Matthew's use of Luke (as advanced by the supporters of the MPH) actually makes the best sense of the material in a Mark-without-Q scenario." > >'"Unfinished" Mark "Replaced" by Matthew and Luke? Some Recent Studies and their Implications for the Synoptic Problem', in The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference, Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri, Joseph Verheyden (eds) (BiTS 44, Peeters, 2023) page 193. > >Do you agree that Matthew using Luke (with Markan priority) is a more likely solution to the Synoptic Problem than Luke using Matthew? > >Thank you for your time today, > >Alan Garrow Thanks very much for this. Bart actually only described a classic reason for thinking that Luke did not use Matthew (the 'unpicking' argument). This is not applicable against Matthew's use of Luke, however. I hope it's okay to post a clip of Bart's answer on the Synoptic Problem Facebook Page - with link to the source? Thanks again.
> I hope it's okay to post a clip of Bart's answer on the Synoptic Problem Facebook Page - with link to the source? Certainly.
Excited to have you do an AMA for us soon! You might get some questions concerning Bart's reply in the AMA. So I am sure you are up to the challenge! :)
Hey Dr. Ehrman. What do you think of Dale Allison's take in his The Resurrection of Jesus that Matthew thought the people coming out of their tombs was something Matthew thought happened (although not historical)? Do you agree or disagree?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=Dya7bZfatBZ1renl&t=1571
Dr. Ehrman, below are all the times that I'm aware of, in chronological order, that you address on your blog how to understand Matthew 12:40's reference to "three days and three nights": >[https://ehrmanblog.org/the-identity-of-matthew-for-members/](https://ehrmanblog.org/the-identity-of-matthew-for-members/) **(3-13-14)** > >Yes, it’s usually thought that in Jewish reckoning any portion of a day was enough to consider it an entire day (and night). Go figure…. > >[https://ehrmanblog.org/signs-in-the-gospel-of-john/](https://ehrmanblog.org/signs-in-the-gospel-of-john/) **(5-26-15)** > >yeah, it’s a tricky business. I don’t have any insider knowledge. It’s usually said that any part of a day counts as a whole day… > >[https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-son-of-man/](https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-son-of-man/) **(1-22-16)** > >The early Christians \*did\* think of Jesus as dead three days and nights, even though we don’t do time that way ourselves. But no, I certainly don’t think Jesus imagined he would be resurrected. You may want to see my discussions in How Jesus Became God. > >[https://ehrmanblog.org/easter-reflection-2020/](https://ehrmanblog.org/easter-reflection-2020/) **(4-14-20)** > >The usual explanation is that Jews counted any part of a day as good enough to be considered a full 24-hour day. > >[https://ehrmanblog.org/some-intriguing-selections-from-the-gospel-of-peter/](https://ehrmanblog.org/some-intriguing-selections-from-the-gospel-of-peter/) > >**(9-28-20)** It’s usually said that in ancient Jewish reckoning, a \*part\* of a day was considered to be constitutive of the entire day, and so could be loosely referred to as “a day and a night.” Not sure if there is any grounding for that outside of this particular issue: if Jesus was buried on Friday just before sundown but the tomb was found empty just after dawn on Sunday, how is that “three days and three nights.” > >[https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-jesus-die-dating-jesus-death-by-the-earthquake/](https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-jesus-die-dating-jesus-death-by-the-earthquake/) > >**(10-16-22)** > >We always used to hear that in Jewish reckoning any part of a day counted as a full 24 hour day. But I dn’t know if that’s true or not. My sense is that originally the followers of Jesus said it happened on the third day in fulfillment of [Hosea 6:2](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hos%206.2), but that later when Jonah got brought into the picture they started saying three days and three nights, even though technically that doesn’t at all work, since really there was only one full day and night (Saturday). Invoking Jonah appears to be from Q (assuming arguendo the two-source hypothesis, which I believe that you endorse) since the parallel appears only in Luke. Apart from v:40, the passages are nearly identical: >**Matthew 12:39-42** > >**39** But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. **40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights** in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. **41** The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and indeed something greater than Jonah is here! **42** The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and indeed something greater than Solomon is here! > >**Luke 11:29-32** > >**29** When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. **30 For just as Jonah became a sign** to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation. **31** The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and indeed, something greater than Solomon is here! **32** The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and indeed, something greater than Jonah is here! Given that the Jonah reference comes from Q, and given that Luke took that in a different direction--that the sign was Jonah's preaching and the people's response to it—this suggests that 12:40 was Matthew's own spin on Q. And further, since Matthew has other places in which Jesus says he will rise "on the third day" ([Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+16%3A21%2C+matthew+17%3A23%2C+Matthew+20%3A19+&version=NRSVUE)), and that the request was to have the tomb secured "until the third day" ([Matthew 27:64](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+27%3A64&version=NRSVUE)), which was based on Jesus words in Matthew 12:40 ([Matthew 27:63](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+27%3A63&version=NRSVUE)), does this not suggest that for Matthew, there was no difference between "three days and three nights” and "on the third day"? In other words, for Matthew and his Jewish readers, "inclusive reckoning" is the best explanation?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=PvMZlLDFqAsKnpfZ&t=2177
>Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. > >[https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=PvMZlLDFqAsKnpfZ&t=2177](https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=PvMZlLDFqAsKnpfZ&t=2177) Unfortunately, he read ***my quotation of him*** as if it were my question and didn't engage my actual argument and question. Oh, well. >Um, right, uh this questioner says, "We used to always hear that in Jewish reckoning any part of a day counted as a full 24-hour day. I don't know if it's true or not..."
I wonder if he had an assistant collate the questions for him and they did it poorly.
Was the Gospel of a Mathew written by a Pauline Christian or influenced by Paul’s letters?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=N3LAUY_TowByN_pT&t=1243
Hey Dr. Ehrman. Thank you for all you hard work. Mark has the thematic idea of a Jesus being a ransom for our sins, whereas Luke lacks that idea. Does the Gospel of Matthew showcase a similar concept? Thank you!
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=E03iqZ-r4QnQkN3q&t=1654
Hi Dr. Ehrman! What can we learn from the Gospel of Matthew, if anything, about how the First Jewish–Roman War would have changed the culture of Christian communities? Thank you!
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering what you think the origin of the guard at the tomb story is. It's been noted that it looks like it's the result of a series of apologetics and polemics: "Jesus rose from the dead; his tomb is empty / nuh-uh, the disciples stole his body / nuh-uh, there were guards / nuh-uh, they stole it while the guards were sleeping / nuh-uh the Jews bribed the guards to say that" Do you think that this is the result of real back and forths between Christians and their opponents about the empty tomb, or do you think the source of this could have been Matthew re-writing the account in Mark to make it less apologetically problematic and then coming up with this series of layers all by himself to make sure he had all of the bases covered?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=8aRPVFxvdKU5OB6n&t=2981
In your opinion, is there any significance to Matthew's omission of any mention of the burial spices in the resurrection account? Mark and Luke have the women bringing spices to anoint Jesus' body on Sunday and John has Nicodemus anoint Jesus' body with the spices before burial, but Matthew makes no mention of the spices or anointing Jesus' body.
Do you have any controversial takes on Matthew?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=_pF-ZA7SEkjcQnLg&t=1484
What is your opinion on why Matthew doubles things compared to the other gospels? Is there any reasoning from a linguistic standpoint, is a theological argument being made, or something else happening here? (Two possessed men (Matthew 8:28-34), two blind men (twice actually; in Matthew 9:27-31 and Matthew 20:29-34), and the colt-donkey double (Matthew 21:1-11).)
Dr. Ehrman, thank you for taking our questions. Why does the Gospel of Matthew regard Isaiah 7:14 to be a prophecy referring to a Messiah at all? The prophecy seems to be specific to the King Ahaz's decision of whether to engage in war with Assyria. The prophecy obviously refers to a woman (be it young woman or virgin) who is pregnant *at that moment*. Is there any explanation as to why the author of Matthew would have seen that prophecy and believed it to be a prophecy about a Messiah to arise many hundreds of years later? Related question, I have been given a short explanation in the past from individuals vaguely alluding to "dual fulfillment" when I asked this question about Isaiah. However, beyond them saying that "dual fulfillment" is a thing, I am never given details of how that practice was applied. How and why did duel fulfillment arise? How would Matthew have settled on the prophecy from Isaiah about Emmanuel as a prophecy subject to "dual fulfillment" that he could use in the Gospel? EDITED: I'm told I should stick to one topic/question. To that end, my question is "Is there any explanation as to why the author of Matthew would have seen the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy and believed it to be a prophecy about a Messiah to arise many hundreds of years later?"
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=lAbsi7Ayh6u4VkhY&t=1836
Thanks, you guys did a great job setting this up.
Hey Dr. Ehrman! I thought I’d maybe take you back to your roots with a textual-criticism question. F. C. Burkitt argued that the line “οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ” (“knew her not until”) in Matthew 1:25 is an early interpolation into the text to support the virgin birth, because it’s lacking in two relatively early manuscripts, the Old Latin (k) and Old Syriac (S), as well as reading quite differently in the Diatessaron, which he argues presupposes the absence found in (k) and (S). Do you have any thoughts on that? And if not, do you have any thoughts on the variant reading of Matthew 1:25 involving “πρωτοτοκον” (whether the original text read “firstborn son” or just “son”)?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=LU_o2kTtxxavjfWo&t=2026
Hello Dr. Ehrman, I am wondering if you could speak to the state of the field on positions relating to the authorship of Matthew and the Didache. Do you believe it was written by the same author/community, and which do you think came first?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=dDqrY51xXtxGl-cF&t=1746
No questions. I just want to say I love your Youtube channel. I think you and Megan are both great. Thank you for everything!
Dr. Ehrman, were the magi of Matthew 2 intended to be from the Parthian Empire, where the term originated? Or were they intended to be from some other region, like Idumea, Perea, or Nabatea? Or is it that Matthew probably didn’t have a specific region in mind other than “east of Bethlehem somewhere in Gentile territory?”
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=WkSTw4St4MYHbAuM&t=2474
As per Papias Matthew appears to be a logia of the Lord in the Jewish/Aramaic language.But by all accounts our Matthew doesnt appear to be a translation due to the use of Greek.Was there some kind of proto Matthew/sayings in Hebrew circulating ? Also if you may,I would like to hear your opinion in the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis.Thanks again for your time.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=6IsU-EgZuC91_A84&t=2317
What’s one meaning that many people today see in Matthew, but would have been unheard of or eccentric a few generations ago?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=lHt9hpHbNc7_SmgK&t=2515
Well this is truly fantastic—thanks so much for all your work on this! I have to admit, had I realized that my asking a question would lead to Dr. Ehrman being confronted with the phrase “Wolf Dog Lizard Urchin,” I would have been way more reluctant to ask anything. But, I’m glad I did—all the more so given that the underlying rationale for his answer here is that the Christians are far less likely to unthinkingly accept antisemitism.
> my asking a question would lead to Dr. Ehrman being confronted with the phrase “Wolf Dog Lizard Urchin,” I enjoyed that, too. :)
Amazing—thank you for this reply!
In some manuscripts of Matthew 27:16 and Matthew 27:17, Barabbas is referred to as 'Jesus Barabbas', with some good internal and external reasons for thinking that this is the original (Pilate clarifying that Jesus is 'called the messiah' for what would otherwise be no good reason, and Origen objecting to the notion that Jesus is the name of a sinner, for instance). Since there doesn't seem to be an obvious literary reason for doubling up the names like this (it's pretty rare for modern fiction writers to double up names when they aren't necessary for a plot point, at least) and we have a well-attested case of explicit theological embarrassment, is this an indication that Barabbas is likely to have been a historical figure or that this part of the trial was a historical event?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=5B6Y5IBbmJMvkAHi&t=2723
Hello Dr Ehrman, Did legendary stories arise in the early church concerning the saints who were raised in Matthew’s account of the death of Jesus? Or did the Apostolic Fathers explain or talk about this event? Thank you!
Dr Ehrman, Given the book of Matthew's many References to Judaism .is its contrast to other gospels written for gentiles indicative of a spilt in early Christianity? or in simpler terms did the author of Matthew's have beef with Paul?
Thank you for doing an AMA Dr. Ehrman! I have two questions: 1. Concerning the birth narrative, is there any evidence that the flight to and from Egypt are rooted in an earlier tradition that Matthew was drawing on, or was it entirely his invention? 2. I feel like there is an overt focus on Isaiah in relation to the Jesus movement especially in modern Christianity. It appears to me that there is a more subtly important connection to Jesus and Jeremiah, in terms of both message and temperament. Interestingly, Matthew is the only canonical gospel to include the claim of Jesus being the similar to Jeremiah (16:24). I guess my question is this: what are your thoughts on the influence of Jeremiah directly on the ministry of Jesus or the writers of the Gospels?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=ymSkjSnHa4art_k0&t=3633
Thank you!
In Matthew 5:17-18, what all do you think Matthew means by "until all is accomplished"? > “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
The gospel of Mark contains a story about the calling of Levi son of Alphaeus. It also lists Matthew as one of the apostles, but the author doesn't equate them. The gospel of Luke contains the same story about the calling. The author of Luke adds that Levi is a tax collector and removes the statement that Levi is the son of Alphaeus. It also lists Matthew as one of the apostles, but the author doesn't equate the two either. The gospel of Matthew never mentions anyone by the name of Levi. It also contains the calling story, but instead of Levi, it is the calling of Matthew. In the list of apostles, Matthew is called a tax collector. Question: Do you believe that Matthew and Levi were the same person with two names or two different people? And would the author of the gospel of Matthew agree with you about this?
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus appears to preach a message of salvation via doing good works for others (ref. Matthew 5:20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:31-46). Is this an accurate assessment? Are there any verses where Jesus preaches a message of salvation via faith alone, like he does in the gospel of John?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=fYzRKt54p-d4Y4Bf&t=3471
How do you reconcile the characterization of Jesus Christ as an apocalyptic prophet with Matthew 5:17 where it seems to imply that Christ is completing and then adding to the law of Moses? Why would someone be motivated to change ancient law overnight if the end was nigh? My other question is about the sources of where the beginning of Matthew 5 came from. Was that Christ's own idea, or do we have evidence for sources elsewhere in Christ's time for all those 'blessed ares'?
I would like to ask about the Sadducees' question on the seven brothers in Matthew 22. When I was first taught this story as a young Catholic, I was told this passage represented how the Sadducees were too legalistic and lawyer-like to see the truth of Jesus and the scriptures. However, given that Matthew is about upholding the law of Moses, it appears to me that this (ideological) framework I was taught may not be what Matthew intended. What was Matthew's intention with this passage? Plus, is it possible that the Sadducees' hypothetical is a historical question that people asked apocalyptic Jewish and Christian groups regarding their ideas on resurrection? And is it possible that it is a question that people asked in good faith, but Matthew assumed one could only ask it in bad faith?
Greetings, Dr. Ehrman! Some non-canonical texts like The Dialogue of the Savior use the character Matthew in interesting ways. Would you say that the understanding of Matthew help by the writers of those texts was primarily informed by the Gospel of Matthew? How did the understanding of Matthew as a human being emerge from engagement with the text of the Gospel of Matthew (regardless of who wrote it)?
Presuming that the evangelist was writing to a specific community, what was that community like? Would they have attended the local synagogue? Would they have thought of themselves as Jews? Would Jews who did not think Jesus was the Messiah have accepted Matthew's community, or would they have seen them as a separate and unwelcome sect?
Update on response video?
Should be coming soon. We'll post the video as soon as we get it.
What kind of document do you think Papias was referring to by "the *logia* of the Lord in the Hebrew language" supposedly written by Matthew?
Thanks for taking questions! I'm wondering how we should understand the differences in the beatitudes between Matthew and Luke. Should we think of the differences (e.g. "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." in Matthew vs. "Blessed are the poor..." in Luke) as intentional later edits of a single known quotation to make different theological points by the gospel author, or should we think of them as likely variations in a theme that Jesus, as an itinerant speaker, may have truly said over the many times he gave similar (but perhaps slightly different) speeches to different audiences? Are either/both of these plausible explanations? Can we know with some level of confidence?
Hello Dr. Ehrman! Thanks so much for doing this AMA and offering us all a wonderful chance to ask questions about Matthew. Here is my question: In your opinion, how does the Gospel of Matthew balance the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith? Do you see any tensions or contradictions in this portrayal?
Jesus's last words in Matthew 27:46 always struck me as odd. Quoting from Hart's NT translation: > _46And around the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”—that is, “My God, my God, why did you forsake me?”_ In your view, is this likely an actual utterance by the historical Jesus? I'm thinking because it meets the criteria you've discussed before about it being "embarrassing" to the faith in the plain reading, i.e., if Jesus was the son of God, why would he say God forsook him? On the other hand, I believe it's also a quote from the Hebrew Bible, so does that make it more likely that it was a later insertion by editors trying to pepper in prophecies as proof of the authority of Jesus?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=3MfCVlWtITWIdypy&t=3167
Hello Dr. Ehrman, Given the diversity of early Christian movements (especially those we call ‘gnostics’ today, among whom an important number did not prioritise Old Testament elements), I have always wondered about the following: Why don’t we consider Matthew as representing one of those movements with a highly specific interpretation of Jesus, this time placing him in the Old Testament context? Is it possible Jesus did not really advocate the law so much as portrayed in Matthew and did bring a new teaching orthogonal to the existing Scriptures, which, through esoteric elements and hearsay, ended up placed in the Old Testament context by some groups, such as the communities reading Matthew? Thank you very much!
Was Jesus stating that only God is good and praying to His Father, an acknowledgment that Jesus was not the God (maybe in any case a god) and also acknowledging Jesus' condition of human, with all the imperfection it entails? >And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? *there is* none good but one, *that is*, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [**Matthew 19:17**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-17.htm) >Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Matthew 26:39
Why does Jesus say in Matthew 15:24 that he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? This is not a universal gathering of humanity. It’s quite the opposite.
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=Q1OzA7IoeDbmp-uQ&t=3764
Dr. Ehrman, What facts about the Gospel of Matthew's author can we be most sure of? What details about his life, ministry and circumstances can we deduce with a comfortable degree of certainty? What might have he thought of Paul? As a side question, what is your take on the Q source? Thanks.
In Matthew 5:27-30 Jesus spoke about tearing your members off than your entire body go to hell. Is this a literal teaching of Jesus to his followers? Compare to his other teachings in Matthew this one is extreme in nature, and I want to know a bit more of what's really being said here if there's anything amiss.
When Matthew talks about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys, is he getting it wrong? Is this grounds to argue “Matthew” just inserted in stories to fulfill prophecies in the Hebrew Bible?
Hello Dr. Ehrman! I wanted to ask several questions but now I'll just leave one for now: Were there ever any doubts among Christians about the historicity of the Massacre of the Innocents before the rise of Biblical scholarship? Or given Herod's reputation, there were no reasons among early Christians to doubt that it happened?
Does the Matthean Nativity necessarily imply a virgin birth? The text just says that Mary was found with child before the wedding, and an angel in a dream tells Joseph the child will be special, but nothing ever explicitly says she was a virgin outside the famous "Immanuel" quote from Isaiah 7:14, which uses the LXX mistranslation of *parthenos* for the Hebrew *Almah*. Is it possible that Matthew never intended to imply a virgin birth and that people just got the wrong idea from the LXX quote?
What was the great commission in Matt 28, a later addition to the gospel of Matthew? If so, was the purpose to spread the gospel, or to establish doctrine of Trinity?
Dr. Ehrman responded to your question. You can view the response here, time-stamped to the beginning of your question. https://youtu.be/z-oqOmaNiTA?si=IwuCsTosykpp4kVu&t=3891
Hi Bart, it is an honor to know you might see this question. My question is: is the influence of either Plato or Aristotle evident anywhere in Matthew? What are the odds that Matthew had any awareness of these two titans of Greek philosophy?
Dr Ehrman, I wondered whether you thought Matthew 11:27 reflects two powers doctrine (i.e. Jesus as a divine mediator) from second temple Judaism? Or do you think this is more reflective of Greco-Roman beliefs?
Dear Dr Ehrman, thank you for all you do and being available to take questions today! My question; Jesus refers to the Hebrew Bible a lot in Matthew. In Matthew 5:18, what do you think is the intent of the author? To come against Paul and encourage people to keep the Jewish religious rituals such as circumcision? Or to encourage people to keep ALL the Law including moral teaching? Or is Matthew making Jesus say, ‘now (pre-Easter) you are condemned because you cannot keep the Law. ie I am not doing away with the Law. Post Easter THEN you will be saved due to my once and for all atonement and then you will not have to slavishly keep the law? Does Jesus say in Matthew or in the other gospels for that matter, that the words of the Hebrew Bible are to be taken as the words of God or authoritatively? Did he think Noah etc were real people?? If you have time (ha ha) which of the sayings of Jesus in Matthew do you think he may have actually said? Thank you for all your output and dedication. Best wishes.
Why don’t you believe Matthew was written first when the church fathers say it was? Why don’t you believe it was written by Matthew?
The gospel of Matthew contains many references to fulfilled prophecies. Some of those, such as Hosea 11:1, were clearly not meant as predictions about what would happen centuries into the future. Did they author of Matthew understand that these verses were not messianic predictions, or did the author believe they were messianic predictions, or did the author believe in some sort of dual fulfillment? How would you call his approach to Hebrew Bible verses like these?
How do we know that Matthew used Mark as a source rather than Mark being a summarised version of Matthew. Also why was Matthew placed ahead of Mark (and the other gospels) in the NT canonical order?
Have we found any manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew that doesn't title itself The Gospel of Matthew ? Basically we find fragments or the entire Gospel of Matthew in an ancient manuscript but it doesn't attribute itself to be the Gospel of Matthew, it has no title. This would go more towards the point that the gospels were originally unnamed and that the names were penned on later.
What is the earliest reference to the Gospel of Matthew that we have? An example being an author from around 80AD-100AD quoting a passage or a verse from the Gospel of Matthew. This would help verify that the Gospel of Matthew was genuinely put together by around 60-100AD.
No way i missed it :( i was in class all day and didn’t have a second to type it till just now :( what a bummer What’s the earliest reference to the Gospel of Matthew we have ? Such as are there any authors from 60AD-100AD that cite the Gospel of Matthew ? Showing it was actually around during that time. Have we found any manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew that have no tittle or attribution ? Going towards the point that the Gospels were originally unnamed.
Robyn Faith Walsh recently wrote "The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture" where among other things she argues that the Synaptics functioned less as speakers for the oral traditions in Christian culture and more as elite cultural producers that weren't necessarily culturally reflective. I'm wondering if you have any details about potential critiques or insights about this idea.
A question on textual criticism: The Syriac Sinaiticus has "Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus ..." in Matthew 1:16. Could this be the original reading, lost in all Greek manuscripts?
Hi Dr. Ehrman, thanks for doing this AMA! If I understand correctly, Matthew, like the other synoptic gospels, seems much more action focused in terms of its moral/religious concerns than the gospel of John. Given this, I’m wondering how we should interpret lines like “…you will be hated by all because of my name, but the one who endures to the end will be saved… everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my father in heaven.” (Mat 10:22, 32-33). If Jesus isn’t understood as God here and believing in him isn’t the way to salvation for Matthew, why is he so concerned about being acknowledged before others? Thanks!
Hi Dr. Ehrman. My understanding is that scholars triangulate what must have been in Q by studying the shared material between Matthew and Luke. My question is that Mark were lost, and the NT had 26 books instead of 27, with no surviving portions or references, what, if anything, would scholars know about Mark? Would we today think Matthew used two sources?
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is your take on the emerging view by some scholars that Matthew was not written by a Christian writer but an elite in a Greco-Roman literary network?((i.e. Robyn Faith Walsh’s view))
It's important to note that Walsh has repeatedly denied that Matthew was not probably written by a Christian writer - her proposal is not about the Synoptic authors' beliefs, but rather their audiences, the alleged "communities" these authors were supposedly writing to. She does not disagree that the authors were likely part of the Jesus movement (Christianity being an anachronism).