Authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John

  • Thread starter Thread starter KJW5551
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KJW5551

Guest
I recently finished reading Brand Pitre’s excellent book “The Case for Jesus” which argues quite persuasively for the traditional authorship of the gospels, i.e. that The Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew, The Gospel of John by John, etc., as opposed to them being written anonymously and later attributed to the apostles, as many now believe.

I found great comfort in Dr. Pitre’s arguments which were reasonable, well-argued, and convincing, and I assumed his view was in line with the Church’s official teaching. So, it was with great dismay that I saw this on the USCCB website:

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. " (USCCB “Matthew–Introduction”)

This seems to blatantly question whether Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel attributed to him. Similarly, their introduction to the Gospel of John questions whether John the apostle wrote the entirety of his Gospel. Surely this cannot be what our Bishops believe, right? Can someone please clarify why this would be found on their official website? I really hope this is just an oversight on their part and not the official teaching of the Church; it seems to me that the eyewitness testimony of Matthew and John is absolutely essential to give us an accurate historical understanding of Jesus.

Any clarification or further suggested readings on this topic would be much appreciated.
 
Let’s look at the principle of tradition. Assume for a moment, that “anon” wrote both, but they were used in the Church. In a living, ongoing continuum of use, within an authoritative Church that argued and debated the canon for centuries, how would one suddenly slip in alleged authorship without a major uproar?

Doubts do not come from the Church or from the Holy Spirit.

They come from modernists and other non-believers.
 
I believe wholeheartedly that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And I agree with you that anonymous authorship followed by sudden attribution makes little sense, particularly in a vast geographical area. That’s one of the key points in Dr. Pitre’s book.

My question is, why in the world is this on the USCCB website?
 
Here’s a brief overview of the validity of the two sourced hypothesis and why most scholars accept it:

http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com...s/775/original/hyperlink-04-06.pdf?1417381813

Here’s Fr. Raymond Brown’s work on the authorship of the Johannine material, it’s older so some of the hypotheses put forth have fallen out of favor with modern scholars but overall it’s still an important scholarly work and a good introduction into the historical context behind the Gospel of John:

 
Last edited:
It’s simply the verbatim introduction from the NABRE Bible.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Here’s a brief overview of the validity of the two sourced hypothesis and why most scholars accept it:

http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com...s/775/original/hyperlink-04-06.pdf?1417381813
Click to expand...
Thank you for that document.
I look forward to arguing against its assumptions.

Whereas I say,
Matthew wrote the first Gospel.
Luke wrote his Gospel next.
Then comes Mark’s Gospel

I plan to use early tradition of the church in my defense.

Till then, consider

The Bible and Why Markan Priority is False

http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/matt/index.html

John

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
KJW5551 said:
I recently finished reading Brand Pitre’s excellent book “The Case for Jesus” which argues quite persuasively for the traditional authorship of the gospels,
Click to expand...
When you say Pitre “argues quite persuasively for the traditional authorship,” do you mean he succeeds in establishing that authorship beyond all reasonable doubt, or is he making the more modest assertion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are, in fact, quite likely to have been the true authors, despite all the arguments that have been put forward over the years contesting that claim?
 
Last edited:
The gospel of luke explicitly says it’s based on earlier writings from multiple authors. Luke 1:1-3
 
Thanks, Spyridon. I just opened my copy of the NABRE and I see that now (I had never read the introductions before).

The question still remains though: why would the Bishops ever approve the NABRE and promote it to the laity if it brazenly calls into question the authorship of the Gospels? I don’t understand this at all.
 
KJW5551 said:
Any clarification or further suggested readings on this topic would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
From an academic perspective, it might be an interesting question, but from a spiritual aspect we need to ask ourselves, is it the message or the attributed author that is more important in revealing the truth of the Salvation Economy?

I would submit to you it doesn’t matter…Whether it is the “Gospel of” or the “Gospel According to” does not alter the truth.

Pax et Bonum!
 
KJW5551 said:
I don’t understand this at all.
Click to expand...
I frankly don’t see what the difficulty is. Pitre’s book is a polemic, arguing for one particular answer to the question of authorship, while the notes and prefaces in many Bibles published nowadays, including Catholic Bibles, stop short of engaging in polemics. These writers and editors usually see their task as simply stating the known facts, and in the case of the authorship of the four Gospels, the only known fact is that nobody has certain knowledge of the true authorship. I haven’t read Pitre’s book and I am still looking forward to reading your answer to my earlier question (No. 8 or 9 on this thread). Is Pitre arguing that the balance of probabilities points to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors rather than to anyone else, or is he claiming to have established the true authorship of the four Gospels beyond all reasonable doubt? It makes a difference.
 
Last edited:
Beyond all reasonable doubt? I’m not even sure how you could prove something like this beyond all reasonable doubt short of finding new manuscripts with more explicit info about authorship or something along those lines.

Respectfully, I think you’re missing my point. If the Catholic Church teaches that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew, then why do the US bishops promote a version of the Bible that questions this? That’s the question I had hoped to have answered when posting my original question.
 
Authorship of the Gospels falls under “theologumen” - theological opinion.

So long as one holds that the Gospels faithfully preserve Apostolic Doctrine and Preaching, and have God the Holy Spirit as there author, people are free to hold varying opinions about who the human author was.

Obviously the preferable and traditional view is that St. John the Apostle wrote his Gospel - but it’s also permissible to hold that the Johannine community preserved Johns teachings and various Evangelists in that community committed his Gospel to writing.
 
Last edited:
And because it is a matter of theology (which is an academic rather than (or, in some cases both) a spiritual) endeavor, we can also view t Mark’s gospel as a big resource for Matthew’s gospel, and not the other way around. Even St. Augustine viewed Mark as a plagiarist of Matthew, errantly concluding that only John and Matthew’s gospels had any legitimacy because they were attributed as the teachings of Apostles.
 
Hereiam said:
Even St. Augustine viewed Mark as a plagiarist of Matthew, errantly concluding that only John and Matthew’s gospels had any legitimacy because they were attributed as the teachings of Apostles.
Click to expand...
I never heard that before, got a source?
 
KJW5551 said:
If the Catholic Church teaches that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew, then why do the US bishops promote a version of the Bible that questions this?
Click to expand...
I agree with you that there’s an obvious contradiction here. If it’s true that the Catholic Church teaches that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew, then the U.S. bishops ought not to be promoting a version of the Bible that questions this. And conversely, given that the U.S. bishops are, in fact, promoting a version of the Bible that questions the traditional authorship of Matthew, what exactly does it mean to state that “the Catholic Church teaches that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew”?

Take a look at this excerpt from the online Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the Gospel of St. Matthew, first published over a century ago, long before Vatican II:

In view of the universal and constant agreement of the Church, as shown by the testimony of the Fathers, the inscription of Gospel codices, most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils, and finally by liturgical usage in the Eastern and Western Church, it may and should be held that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name.

“It may and should be held … ” Not exactly emphatic, is it? Not exactly a proclamation of incontrovertible truth.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
I never heard that before, got a source?
Click to expand...
Several academic sources…would take me a while to go through my entire library to source them out here…easiest search is “Augustinian Hypothesis” and “Two Source Hypothesis”.

Essentially states Matthew was first (and original) gospel, Mark written based on Matthew, Luke based on Matthew and Mark, and John another original gospel.

Makes sense in the historical context of Augustine, but later scholarship would pick it apart, showing Mark written first using “Q”, and then Matthew drawing on some of Mark’s in addition to his own real time witnessing of the public ministry of Christ.

While Matthew and John would have the “eye witness” edge, Luke interviewed witnesses, and Mark’s gospel was more theological using events but showing those events (and the ministry, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ) in light of Jewish Scriptures.

Pax et Bonum!
 
Years ago I read this book, “Eyewitness to Jesus,” by by Matthew D’Ancona and Carston Thiede.

I don’t remember much of the book other than their claim that at Magdalen University in Oxford, England, they discovered in the library, fragments from a piece of a papyrus manuscript which they believe could be the Gospel Of Matthew, written by the Saint himself.
They dated the fragments to be around 35 AD if memory serves me right.

I never heard pros or cons about the book and always wondered what became of authenticating those fragments ?

Jim
 
I know the Augustinian hypothesis.

I was asking for a source where St. Augustine claims Mark is a plagiarist.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
never heard pros or cons about the book and always wondered what became of authenticating those fragments ?
Click to expand...
The scholarly consensus is the Magdalen papyrus dates to about A.D. 200, give or take 50 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top