matthews gospel in 73 a.d.?

Here is a link referring to an article claiming evidence of matthews gospel in 73 a.d. or earlier.
Anyone know about this?from the link...
In an essay written for the book Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University reported a find in the Talmud that appears to show Matthew could have been written earlier than some scholars contend.Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about A.D. 73 or earlier.http://www.kansascity.com/...scity/entertainment/6014126.htm

As judge already knows this is being discussed on the Internet Infidels discussion boards, in this thread
Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion BoardI would add that I would pay special attention to Peter Kirby's comments, as he has greatly impressed me in the past.It seems that this is not news and the people behind it are not reliable scholars.

Im writing an essay for my A - Level Religious Studies and I am told that Matthew was written between 80 - 90 AD, is this correct? Matthews picture of Jesus attacking the Pharisees comes less from Jews of 30AD and more from the Christians in the 80s who were attacking Pharisaism...? if ne1 could help with explaining this i'd be more than happy to listen - thanks

As noted above, Kirby is a valuable resource, as is his very impressive Early Christian Writings.I suggest you review the referrence to The Gospel of Matthew.

I've got to agree here that Peter Kirby's stuff is very impressive. He also odes a great job over at infidels.
He hasn't been around much over there lately though.I believe that,
1. matthew was first penned in Aramaic
2. This Aramaic version survives to this day in the peshitta.
3. Internal evidence in the peshitta itself backs this up, that being that the peshitta is the only version that words Matthew 1:16 correctly. All other version are based on a mistransaltion of the Aramaic word gowra.
Both gowra (matt 1:16) and baala (matt 1:19) were transalted into the greek word aner and subsequently both words were translated into husband.
Gowra should be translated as father not husband.
Unfortunately western scholars have not studied the peshitta in any detail at all and just ask us to assume that matthew (and therest of the NT) were written in greek despite the fact they produce no evidence to support this

And you know this how?

I would add that since Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic (although a different dialect) isn't it entirely possible that a translator converting Matthew's Gospel from Greek to Aramaic would spot the same thing and make a correction ?On the other hand it is certain that there is a literary depednence relating the Greek Synoptics, which argues for Greek origins for at least two. Which means that your idea relies on Matthean priority.

The english translations of Matthew (the popular ones anyway) are all based upon the greek versions of Matthew, and they all contain something very strange.
At least three things do not seem to make sense and one can easily find well meaning beleivers going to unusual lengths to try to pretend it all makes sense.These three things are as follows.
1. The author plainly tells us that he mentions 42 generations , yet only 41 are mentioned (or so it seems)2. Mattew tells us that Joseph's father is Jacob, whilst Luke quite plainly says Josephs father is Heli3. Jesus was foretold as being the direct descendent of David (and Solomon) but there is no indication of this in any of the gospels (or so it seems)All these problems are solved when we see that both Marys husband and father were named Joseph, and the Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is her father and the Joseph in verse 19 is her husband.Verse 16 GOWRA, verse 19 BAALA[This message has been edited by judge, 12-01-2003]

This may be the conclusion of scholars but to be certain these same scholars must examine the evidence in light of the peshitta.This has never been done by western scholars!!!Added in edit.
Paul I agree with your point that these kind of things could be the result of later editors, but if are to consider this then weshould also consider that the peshitta may be the original text as well.The NT (eastern not western) peshitta is probably the only biblical books which show no indication of editing at all.
If you disagree, I think you will be hard pressed to find an example.
The (western) peshitto is an edited peshitta. Two verses were edited by the monophysite western church, these being Hebrews 2:9 and Acts chapter 20 (I forget the exact verse).
But with the (eastern) peshitta NT there is no actual evidence of editing.there is an old thread here on Matthew being written in Aramaic if you search for it.
(for some reason I could not find it , but it is here somewhere)
Hard to beleive but true![This message has been edited by judge, 12-01-2003][This message has been edited by judge, 12-01-2003]

How can the Peshitta be relevant ? The issue is direct copying of the Greek text of one Gospel to another. Independent translations would not do that.

Hi again.
How can one argue for greek originals unless one examines whether there is evidence that they may be translated from the peshitta?[This message has been edited by judge, 12-01-2003]

Why would you need to look at the Peshitta to observe that the Greek text has been copied and that therefore two out of the three synoptics would have been originally in Greek ?

Which gospels do you think were written in greek?

Interesting. I offer one line of evidence for Greek originals that doesn't involve looking at the Peshitta and you ask how we can have evidence of Greek originals without looking at the Peshitta. I suggest you think again. Your question was answered by the very point it attempts to respond to.Here's another point. We know that Paul wrote to Christian communities in Greece and Asia Minor where Greek would be spoken more than Aramaic. Luke is often held to be written by a companion of Paul, and even if it is not it is greatly concerned with the Gentile (and therefore predominantly Greek-speaking) communities. Therefore it is likely that Luke's Gospel was written in Greek.Let me add that the only early source even possibly referring to any Aramaic original (Papias) does not clearly identify the document and also states that Mark wrote independantly, from his memory of Peter's teachings. This supports Markan priority and as a corrollary that the document attributed to Matthew is not the original of the Gospel that we have today.

In my view all four canonical Gospels were originally in Greek.Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke were compiled from Mark and a lost Greek text ('Q' - which MIGHT be a translation of an Aramaic originalor include material from an Aramaic document). John is later still and probably uses material from Mark although it does not rely on direct copying.