Authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John

[Kei]

I think those at the time probably knew greater than those from thousands of years later.
Matthew was quite likely literate, and it is not at all surprising if he first wrote the teachings of his Rabbi, in the language they spoke (as recorded).
This and the aural traditions probably also lend reasons for similarities in the texts, along with being written based upon actual historical events that occurred.
It is unlikely that of all the apostles, someone would take the name of the TAX COLLECTOR!! And then, instead of apostles, take the names of other people (Mark and Luke).

 

[Peter_M]

The real problem is: If the gospel was not written by Matthew, the tax collector as named in that (and only that) gospel… then some believers begin to have doubts about the entire Gospel, the faith… God. It is as though it has become a made up story, full of lies and falsehoods. The house of cards falls.

So, it is imperative for these believers to defend the “eyewitness” nature of the writing, regardless of other evidence, which is easily dismissed as unimportant because it comes from impure motives.

 

[De_Maria]

The NAB is an ecumenical Bible. Separated brethren had (name removed by moderator)ut on the notes and the intros.

I like the text of the NAB, but I ignore all the footnotes, notes and any other commentaries because they just tend to make me angry.

 

[Hereiam]

I know the Augustinian hypothesis.

I was asking for a source where St. Augustine claims Mark is a plagiarist.

Mea culpa…came from class notes…plagiarism not an accurate term, because it would require not just the use of other sources, but rather taking credit for them…although by today’s standards, simply omitting the fact that the source was not used would be considered plagiarism.

And, another issue that would make plagiarism a problematic definition is the entire original intent of this thread…mainly was were the Gospels conclusively the works of those they are named for.

So, in defense of the theologian lecturer, I would add that he probably was not using theterm as a pejorative (by implying intentional deceit to take credit for the work).

 

[fredystairs]

The Pontifical Biblical Commission published its decisions concerning the authorship of the Gospels (and some other biblical books). I have attached the link below which lists the Commission’s decisions. The Gospel of Matthew is discussed in the June 19, 1911 decision, the Gospels of Mark and Luke are discussed in the June 26, 1912 decision (in two parts) and the Gospel of John in the May 29, 1907 decision. The Commission concludes that the name of the respective gospel reflects the author of that gospel. (Please note that one should read the question posed to the Commission carefully as there are nuances that can be confusing).

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm

While the Commission does not specifically say so, I would imagine that they used Eusebius’ The History of the Church as part of the basis for their decisions. Below are two passages from his work concerning the authorship of the Gospels:

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.
(Book III, Chapter 39)

continued

 

[fredystairs]

continued

1. Since, in the beginning of this work, we promised to give, when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down to them concerning the canonical books, and since Irenæus was one of them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the sacred Gospels:
2. Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.
3. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared.
4. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.

(Book 5, Chapter 8)

Eusebius wrote about the year 320 or so. His history is an interesting account of the Early Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

Blessings

 

[HarryStotle]

The gospel of luke explicitly says it’s based on earlier writings from multiple authors. Luke 1:1-3

No, actually, it doesn’t explicitly say anything of the sort. Let’s begin by being completely honest and truthful about things. Here is what Luke says…

Since many have undertaken to set down AN orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,…

Note: “an orderly account” is singular, but “events…they were handed on to us…by…eyewitnesses” is plural. The “orderly account” (singular) may have been written in many forms by a number of authors or a single one based upon a number (many) contributors who tried to set one account down.

“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account…” doesn’t mean Luke necessarily used all or most of that/those orderly account(s) nor that he “based” his own entirely or significantly upon it/them. Of course, he may have, but he doesn’t explicitly say that he did. Sure, that/those orderly account(s) was/were “handed on to us,” but Luke doesn’t tell us the extent to which he used it/them. In fact, he wrote at a time when many eyewitnesses were still living, and “investigating everything carefully from the very first” strongly implies that he went directly to those eyewitnesses as first sources.

 

[HarryStotle]

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?

Pitre argues the point from number of angles, but here is just a sample from the early Church Fathers:

Early Fathers on the Origin of Matthew

Papias of Hierapolis:
Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could.
Justin Martyr:
For in the Memoirs of the apostles and their successors it is written…
Irenaeus of Lyons:
Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.
Clement of Alexandria:
Of all those who had been with the Lord only Matthew and John left us their recollections, and tradition says they took to writing perforce. Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent…”

Early Fathers on the Origin of Mark
Papias of Hierapolis:
And the elder [John] used to say this: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had not intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or make any false statement in them.”
Justin Martyr:
We are told that he [Christ] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and it is written in his memoirs that this took place…”
Irenaeus of Lyons:
After their [Peter and Paul’s] departure, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter…
Clement of Alexandria:
But a great light of godliness shone upon the minds of Peter’s listeners that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all kinds of exhortations, they begged Mark (whose gospel is extant), since he was Peter’s follower, to leave behind a written record of the teaching given to them verbally, and did not quit until they had persuaded the man, and thus they became the immediate cause of the scripture called “The Gospel according to Mark.” And they say that the apostle, aware of what had occurred because the Spirit had revealed it to him, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the writing for study in the churches.

 

[HarryStotle]

Early Fathers on the Origin of Luke

Irenaeus of Lyons:
Luke also, who was a follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel which was preached by him.
Muratorian Fragment, Rome:
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.
Tertullian of Carthage:
Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man… not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master—at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle [Paul] whom he followed… was subsequent to the others… Even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.
Origen of Alexandria:
And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe] the Gospel that was praised by Paul.
Jerome, (in Lives of Illustrious Men):
Luke, a physician from Antioch, indicated in his writings that he knew Greek and that he was a follower of the apostle Paul and the companion of all his journeying; he wrote a gospel about which the same Paul says, “We have sent with him a brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches.” (2 Corinthians 8:18)…

 

[HarryStotle]

Early Fathers on the Origin of John

Irenaeus of Lyons:
Then [after the publication of Matthew, Mark, and Luke] John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.
Muratorian Fragment, Rome:
The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, ‘Fast with me today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.’ In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it…
Clement of Alexandria:
Of all those who had been with the Lord only Matthew and John left us their recollections (hypomnēmata), and tradition says that they took to writing perforce… John, it is said, used all the time a message which was not written down, and at last took to writing for the following cause. The three gospels which had been written down before were distributed to all including himself; it is said he welcomed them and testified to their truth but said that there was only lacking to the narrative the account of what was done by Christ at first and at the beginning of the preaching… They say accordingly that John was asked to relate in his own gospel the period passed over in silence by the former evangelists (tōn proterōn euangelistōn)…
Tertullian of Carthage:
We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors… Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles… Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.
Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of John, Recension 2:
This Gospel therefore, written after the Apocalypse, was also given to the churches in Asia by John while still living in the flesh, as the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias by name, a dear disciple of John, has related in his “exoteric,” that is, in [his] last five books, who wrote out this Gospel, John dictating it to him.

 

[po18guy]

I truly wonder why the confusion in our age. Jesus did not leave us orphans. Could it be that modernist/historical-critical methodology suppresses or denies tradition, preferring the 50 shades of gray approach to historicity? Could it be the arrogance which deludes the self into believing that 2,000 years later, certain “intellectuals” know more about something than those who were there?

Certainly reading the introductions in new bibles sheds no light on this, rather seeming only to cause further doubt and debate. Consider the introduction to Matthew from the 1941 Confraternity New Testament.

St. Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, is the author of the first Gospel. He was the son of Alpheus and was called to be an Apostle while sitting in the tax-collector’s place at Capharnaum. Before his conversion he was a publican, i.e., a tax-collector by profession. He is to be identified with the “Levi” of Mark and Luke. His apostolic activity was at first restricted
to the communities of Palestine. Nothing definite is known about his later life. Tradition points to Ethiopia as his field of labor. It is uncertain whether he died a natural death or received the crown of martyrdom. His feast is celebrated on September 21. His Gospel was written to fill a sorely felt want for his fellow-countrymen, both believers and unbelievers. It was designed to convince men that the Messias had come in the Person of Jesus, our Lord, in whom all the promises of the messianic kingdom embracing all people had been fulfilled in a spiritual rather than in a carnal way: “My kingdom is not of this world.” His Gospel, then, answered the question put by the disciples of St. John the Baptist, “Art thou he who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

Writing for his countrymen of Palestine, St. Matthew composed his Gospel in his native Aramaic. Soon afterwards, about the time of the persecution of Herod Agrippa I in 42 A.D., he
took his departure for other lands. Another tradition places the composition of his Gospel either between the time of this departure and the Council of Jerusalem, i.e., between 42 A.D. and 50 A.D., or even later. Definitely, however, the Gospel itself, depicting the Holy City with its altar and temple still existing, and without any reference to the fulfillment of our Lord’s prophecy, shows that it was written before the destruction of the city by the Romans (70 A.D.).

The Gospel was soon translated into Greek—possibly during the lifetime of
St. Matthew or a little later; certainly before the close of the first century. The original has been lost in the course of time. The Greek text, however, is in substantial conformity with the original.

 

[po18guy]

Compare the above to this excerpt from the voluminous (agenda?) introduction to Matthew in the NAB.

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following. 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. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions > found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the
sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but
upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found
in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in
the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q”…

Blah blah blah. After 2,000 years, they finally got it right! 500 years ago, Martin Luther thought he had it right. I see nonsense.

 

[po18guy]

And John? From the Confraternity.

St. John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” was the last to write his Gospel. He was a young man when first called to the apostolate and lived to an advanced old age. At Ephesus, where he lived till about the year 100 A.D., he wrote the Gospel at the request of the Elders. John and James were the sons of Zebedee, of the town of Bethsaida. They were fishermen by trade. They had attached themselves as disciples of John the Baptist, and from him learned that Jesus was the Messias. They were among the first whom Jesus invited to follow Him, and later were called to be with Him permanently. They were among the chosen Twelve. With Peter, they were
permitted to share some of the more hidden experiences of their Master. John was particularly
intimate with Jesus, as his title of “beloved disciple” and his position at the Last Supper clearly show.

To him our Lord entrusted the care of the Blessed Virgin. We do not wonder, therefore, that he was able to reach such spiritual heights in his Gospel, or that tradition has assigned to him the symbol of the eagle.The purpose of the Gospel is stated in 20, 31: “. . . that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” To establish this truth, the evangelist recounts certain of our Lord’s miracles, and the teachings which were associated with them. He assumes that his readers know the Synoptic Gospels, and in some points completes their narrative. But all other possible motives of the Gospel
are subordinate to his main theme, which he unfolds with convincing force.

 

[HarryStotle]

Here is a summary of the dates when those Church Fathers were writing. A number of them (bold-faced) were disciples of Apostles, or personally knew elders or disciples of Jesus, or were disciples of disciples of one of the Apostles.

Papias of Hierapolis <> ~95 to 130 AD <> Asia Minor <> Disciple of John, the Apostle
Justin Martyr <> ~140-165 AD <> Palestine <> Pagan convert to Christianity
Irenaeus of Lyon <> ~150 to 200 <> Lyon in Gaul <> Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John.
Clement of Alexandria <> ~ 170-200 <> Egypt <> Knew elders who knew the Apostles
Origen of Alexandria <> ~230-250 <> Egypt <> Highly Learned Scholar
Tertullian of Carthage <> ~200-225 <> North Africa <> Latin Church Father
Jerome <> ~380-420 <> Palestine <> Esteemed Translator and Commentator
Muratorian Fragment <> ~150-160 <> Rome <> Earliest Canonical List (Author Unknown, but perhaps Papias, Hegesippus, Caius of Rome, Hippolytus of Rome, Rhodon, or Melito of Sardis)

Also:
Clement of Rome (~95 AD): 1 Clement 46:7-8, uses direct quotations of Jesus’ words from Matthew 26:24, Mark 14:21, Luke 17:1-2 and over 40 books of the Bible.

Polycarp (~108 AD): In his Letter to the Philippians 2:3, references the words of Jesus found in Luke 6:20 and Matthew 5:3, 10 and to quotations from many other books of the New Testament.

 

[po18guy]

Compared to this “comfidece-inspiring” excerpt from the intro to John in the NAB.

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. Jn 21seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The
prologue (Jn 1:1–18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (Jn 14:31; 18:1).

To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements
that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the
conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent
editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter
original.

Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the
gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed
theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance,
some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been _worked into highly _
> effective dramatic scenes (Jn 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (Jn 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a > quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the
Old Testament.

I’m sorry, but I would rather doubt the historical-critical modernists than the Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

"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

The statement explains itself. The words are plain and they are clear. They also reflect the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum

It is most assuredly not an oversight that this statement is on the website of the Bishops.

 

[HarryStotle]

Any clarification or further suggested readings on this topic would be much appreciated.

The argument from Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospel narratives strongly supports the idea that each of the Gospel writers had access to their own eyewitness sources.

You might be interested in…

and

regarding the case for mid-first century dating of the Gospels.

 

[twf]

Let’s turn this question around. Let’s say that St Matthew the Apostle did indeed write his gospel. Why then does it appear to quote so extensively from Mark? What would be the traditional explanation for this?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Apparently you are not in touch with fundamental biblical scholarship, if you have no understanding of this.

Thankfully, the Bishops of the United States are conversant in biblical scholarship – a number of them holding advanced degrees in this field from our leading institutions devoted to biblical scholarship. The same is true for our Bishops in the rest of the world.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

When you analyse something to death in a translated language then you can make any interpretation you want out of it. I believe Luke is primarily based on Q and L sources. Most eye witnesses would have been very old by the time Luke was being written. Especially given the shorter life expectancy of those days.