Authorship of the gospels

[fnr]

You speak a great deal about needing to rely on history, yet there is no historical basis for the belief that Peter gave speeches based on Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospel, or that Paul had Luke’s written Gospel “approved by Peter,” or that Mark’s Greek got sloppy because he was copying a short gospel quickly over and over again. Right? Can you pull out any Church Father quotes to support these claims? If you can, I would love to see them. If you can’t, you are drawing epi-circles to prop up a weaker theory.

The Markan priority is based on the texts themselves. The argument needs no appeal to the imagined actions of historical actors. The texts themselves tell the story.

That’s exactly the point. Doing a simple redaction-critical comparison of the parallel passages of the synoptics makes the point splendidly. Historical-critical methods, which the International Theological Commission and Pope BXVI (multiple times)both affirmed in value, also make it very difficult to reach different conclusions.

These are the methods taught in most seminaries and divinity schools, both Catholic and Protestant. (For reference, see the example of, The Pedagogy of the Bible by Dale B. Martin of Yale.) These are the modern methods of analysis. Yes, they’re indeterminate and require judgement outside of the objective analytical frameworks they apply. However, other methods can supplement their errors, including liberation theological, feminist, anthropological, and economic readings. In all of these readings, there must be the core of the faith, the opening of the heart to the Holy Spirit.

Assuming Matthean priority, you’d have to have Luke and Mark both choosing to edit out large segments of the Matthean text. Mark would have to jettison the infancy narrative in Matthew, the Beatitudes, and the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark would have to add in the reference in Mark 3:21 to the family of Jesus thinking him insane (an improbable addition). Luke would have to almost totally rewrite the genealogy in Matthew’s infancy narrative, scrap some sections of Matthew wholesale (including, notably, Matthew 16:16-18).

A good, reasonable way to look at redaction of the gospels, as all the books of the bible, is to think that the redactor/authors took earlier material and included new material to reflect the orthodoxy of its day. We have evidence of this in the New Testament itself, with the book of Jude citing the aprocryphal Book of Enoch and 2 Peter citing the verse from Jude but omitting the reference to Enoch. Very clear evidence that (a) Jude preceded 2 Peter, and (b) later authors redacted earlier texts to reflect their understanding of orthodoxy.

The selective citation of scripture by church fathers is unsurprising, because there was not a canon of the New Testament until after the 2nd century. If we were to only consider those books cited by 2nd century authors as legitimate, we’d be losing quite a bit of the canon, including the pastoral epistles.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Thanks for the links. They make some interesting points, especially about the Church fathers.

I looked over the chart that shows the alleged Synopic Zig Zag of Mark using Matthew, then Luke alternately. I see large chunks of text where all three synoptics use the same order, and yet Mark’s Gospel seems to follow no discernible pattern in how his text would follows theirs. This zig-zag makes even less sense when you have to explain why Mark would have omitted big chucks of Matthew and Luke.

The simpler explanation is that Matthew quotes more from Mark than Luke and more verbatim, but between the two of them leave only 4-5 tales out. So, when Matthew isn’t using Mark, there is a good chance Luke is, and vice versa. When they both use Mark, Matthew is normally the closer analog. Graphing this creates a “zig zag” by definition.

But really, you are conflating a whole bunch of issues

• Who wrote first?
• Did either or both Matthew and Luke have access to each other’s work?
• Did “Q” exist?
• Mark writing first would discount on its face Matthew’s authorship.
• Markan priority is a Protestant plot to undermine Matthew’s Gospel, and thus the Pope.

These claims aren’t causally connected.

• Matthew and Luke could very well have had access to each other’s work…and Mark could still have been written first since they both contain nearly all of Mark’s Gospel.
• Q could simply be Luke copying Matthew or vice-versa…and Mark could still have been written first.
• There is a wealth of unique material in Matthew that could point to eyewitness testimony…even if he took Mark’s material as valid and amended it to reflect a different experience/theology (Patrick discusses this at length)
• I think quite highly of the Church, the Pope and the Gospel of Matthew, even though I believe the evidence points strongly to Mark being the first written Gospel.

I will go back through this article the next time the synoptics come up on my reading list and try to follow the “zig-zags” to examine whether the hypothesis has any value. I am more than willing to change my mind if better evidence can be shown, but understand it is very hard to accept the argument that Mark was using sloppy short hand to record an orally preached Gospel by Peter, who redacted out 1/2 of Luke and Matthew, even though said texts were sent to him specifically by Paul and Luke to verify the unique Paul/Luke content. If Peter’s job was to verify Luke by these speeches, I have to say he would have failed, as so much of Luke is unique and not mentioned in Mark.

It makes far more sense to accept that Mark wrote first, and his short Gospel was added to and his Greek cleaned up by the later authors.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

That’s exactly the point. Doing a simple redaction-critical comparison of the parallel passages of the synoptics makes the point splendidly. Historical-critical methods, which the International Theological Commission and Pope BXVI (multiple times)both affirmed in value, also make it very difficult to reach different conclusions.

These are the methods taught in most seminaries and divinity schools, both Catholic and Protestant. (For reference, see the example of, The Pedagogy of the Bible by Dale B. Martin of Yale.) These are the modern methods of analysis. Yes, they’re indeterminate and require judgement outside of the objective analytical frameworks they apply. However, other methods can supplement their errors, including liberation theological, feminist, anthropological, and economic readings. In all of these readings, there must be the core of the faith, the opening of the heart to the Holy Spirit.

Assuming Matthean priority, you’d have to have Luke and Mark both choosing to edit out large segments of the Matthean text. Mark would have to jettison the infancy narrative in Matthew, the Beatitudes, and the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark would have to add in the reference in Mark 3:21 to the family of Jesus thinking him insane (an improbable addition). Luke would have to almost totally rewrite the genealogy in Matthew’s infancy narrative, scrap some sections of Matthew wholesale (including, notably, Matthew 16:16-18).

A good, reasonable way to look at redaction of the gospels, as all the books of the bible, is to think that the redactor/authors took earlier material and included new material to reflect the orthodoxy of its day. We have evidence of this in the New Testament itself, with the book of Jude citing the aprocryphal Book of Enoch and 2 Peter citing the verse from Jude but omitting the reference to Enoch. Very clear evidence that (a) Jude preceded 2 Peter, and (b) later authors redacted earlier texts to reflect their understanding of orthodoxy.

The selective citation of scripture by church fathers is unsurprising, because there was not a canon of the New Testament until after the 2nd century. ** If we were to only consider those books cited by 2nd century authors as legitimate, we’d be losing quite a bit of the canon, including the pastoral epistles**.

Good post, a better summary of the methodology that I can provide.

Still, I have to point out that Polycarp was using quotes that appear in 1st and 2nd Timothy and attributing them to Paul around 110-120 AD. That is a pretty good chain of custody considering the pseudographic explanation has the Epistle being forged right around the same time, and claiming authorship in the same part of the world, where Polycarp was living. His life also overlapped Timothy by 30 years. Do you have any other explanation as to how these quotes end up in Polycarp attributed to Paul?

 

[fnr]

Still, I have to point out that Polycarp was using quotes that appear in 1st and 2nd Timothy and attributing them to Paul around 110-120 AD. That is a pretty good chain of custody considering the pseudographic explanation has the Epistle being forged right around the same time, and claiming authorship in the same part of the world, where Polycarp was living. His life also overlapped Timothy by 30 years. Do you have any other explanation as to how these quotes end up in Polycarp attributed to Paul?

Good citation.

As to Pauline authorship, it’s a bit outside the “gospel” focus here. Still, to quickly hit the topic, Polycarp of Smyrna may have quoted it as written by Paul. However, that may also be a mistake (as I think it was). Keep in mind that even Mark’s gospel (1:2-3) misquotes the Tanakh by attributing all of the material quoted to Isaiah, when in fact it was a combination of Isaiah, Malachi, and Exodus.

Church Fathers are part of our tradition, but did make mistakes. Sometimes, you can’t blame them because the cultures in which they lived had some problems. Greeks, for instance, believed that women were simply malformed men, and there’s evidence of that in some of their writings as well. Still, they are part of our tradition!

St. Paul himself, whose words I read and over which pray nearly every day, quoted pre-Pauline verses that currently don’t look orthodox. Though I don’t think he was an Adoptionist, he quotes things that look like they’re Adoptionist (e.g., Romans 1:4 – “established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord”). He also quotes what is probably pre-Pauline stuff that doesn’t look like an Adoptionist (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6). I don’t think we can explain Paul’s citation of Romans 1:4 without saying that there was Adoptionism in the early Church. Still, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Good discussion!

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Good citation.

As to Pauline authorship, it’s a bit outside the “gospel” focus here. Still, to quickly hit the topic, Polycarp of Smyrna may have quoted it as written by Paul. However, that may also be a mistake (as I think it was). Keep in mind that even Mark’s gospel (1:2-3) misquotes the Tanakh by attributing all of the material quoted to Isaiah, when in fact it was a combination of Isaiah, Malachi, and Exodus.

Church Fathers are part of our tradition, but did make mistakes. Sometimes, you can’t blame them because the cultures in which they lived had some problems. Greeks, for instance, believed that women were simply malformed men, and there’s evidence of that in some of their writings as well. Still, they are part of our tradition!

St. Paul himself, whose words I read and over which pray nearly every day, quoted pre-Pauline verses that currently don’t look orthodox. Though I don’t think he was an Adoptionist, he quotes things that look like they’re Adoptionist (e.g., Romans 1:4 --** “established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord**”). He also quotes what is probably pre-Pauline stuff that doesn’t look like an Adoptionist (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6). I don’t think we can explain Paul’s citation of Romans 1:4 without saying that there was Adoptionism in the early Church. Still, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Good discussion!

Oh yeah, that is a



But since we are talking about Mark, it can easily be claimed that the Gospel opens with an Adoptionist scene, the entire Gospel paints Jesus’ family is a less than flattering light, and there is no evidence off the top of my head in Mark that points to Jesus being born of a Virgin as the Son of God.

This is another point in favor of Mark being an older Gospel. Again it is very hard to conceive a scenario where St. Peter redacts Virgin Birth narratives from Luke and Matthew, choosing instead to base much of his Gospel on older Christological beliefs, but that is an unintended consequence that springs up with the theory of Peter/Mark as redactor with Luke and Matthew in hand.

 

[Erich]

This is another point in favor of Mark being an older Gospel. Again it is very hard to conceive a scenario where St. Peter redacts Virgin Birth narratives from Luke and Matthew, choosing instead to base much of his Gospel on older Christological beliefs, but that is an unintended consequence that springs up with the theory of Peter/Mark as redactor with Luke and Matthew in hand.

How 'bout this scenario:

Since Peter and Mark were apparently in Rome at some time during Paul’s enforced residence there (cf. 1 Pet 5:12-13), it seems that Paul asked Peter’s advice about the proper procedure for getting Luke’s Gospel into circulation. Peter realised that Paul needed the public assurance that Luke’s book was in complete conformity with his, i.e. Peter’s, own recollections of Jesus, and, when approached, was ready and happy to compare Luke’s treatment of the events at which he himself had been present with Matthew’s parallel account. To achieve this aim, Peter’s plan then must have been to give a series of discourses, perhaps at his weekly Eucharistic Celebration. His secretary Mark presumably helped him to prepare these talks, which were bound to excite the interest of the most influential Christians in Rome including members of the Praetorium, the headquarters of the Roman Army and the equivalent of our Whitehall, where many Christians were to be found. Since it had long been the custom for public men to have their speeches recorded by competent shorthand writers, Mark must have arranged for shorthand writers of Greek to take down Peter’s words just as he uttered them, Greek being then the common language of the inhabitants of Rome.

It is necessary also to recall not only that Peter had an indelible memory of his unforgettable year in Jesus’ company, but that Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit ‘would bring to their remembrance’ all that he had said to them (Jn 14:26). Moreover Peter himself must have been using the Gospel of Matthew for purposes of catechesis for many years past, yet, as an eyewitness, without feeling himself tied to its every word, seeing himself free either to follow Matthew’s wording or to adopt his own according to his mood. Nevertheless his immediate objective at that moment was to relate Luke’s new work to what had happened in Galilee and Judea thirty years before as it had been set down in monumental phrases by the evangelist Matthew.

So then, presumably on the days appointed for the Christians to come together, Peter with Mark in attendance, and with the requisite number of shorthand writers, went to the rostrum armed with the scroll of Lk, Mark perhaps holding the scroll of Mt in reserve in case Peter wanted to refer to it. Careful scrutiny of Mk, after comparing it with Mt and Lk, reveals that it falls into five sections or discourses:
[1] the beginning of the Galilean ministry to the calling of the Twelve (1:2-3:19);
[2] the training of the Twelve to their first commissioning (3:20-6:13);
[3] the later Galilean ministry (6:14-9:51);
[4] ministry on the way to Jerusalem (10:1-13:37);
[5] the passion narrative (14:1-16:8).
The last twelve verses form a postscript noting various resurrection appearances of Jesus. The omission of the birth narratives, of Lk’s Central Section, and most of the composite discourses found in Mt and Lk, as well as their resurrection stories indicates that it was Peter’s intention to talk about only those incidents in the life of Jesus of which he had been an eye-witness and could confirm Luke’s own account. The fact that Peter was prepared to devote so much attention to this new work of Luke shows that he thought it worthy of independent circulation in the Church.

Further study of the text of Mark indicates that Peter delivered his reminiscence to his audience by word of mouth in Greek while the shorthand writers recorded it word for word. It would seem that although he had the scroll of Lk in his hands as he spoke and followed the Lukan order of events, he was - as we have seen above - to a considerable extent conditioned by his knowing the Gospel of Mt practically by heart.

Hence, probably quite unconsciously, the phraseology of Mt comes constantly to his lips as he recollects the incidents in the life of Jesus now being brought before him vividly by the same stories being retold by Luke. Nevertheless Peter, being an authentic eye-witness, in no way feels himself bound to follow the exact wording either of Luke or of Matthew. Hence he retells each incident with complete confidence and independence while automatically acknowledging the restraints imposed by his knowledge of Mt’s contents and Lk’s order. And this procedure accounts very well for the many vivid asides and other details that Peter is able to introduce into his retelling the same stories. It also explains why Peter supplies from his own memory and Mt’s account such long Lukan omissions as that of Mt 14:22-16:11.

In fact, Peter, while discoursing, probably was holding only one document in his hands, that of Luke, the document presented to him by Paul for verification. Of course he would have had the Gospel of Matthew at hand while making the necessary advance preparations for his discourses; but he would not have needed to refer to it while speaking. It is a cardinal error of modern scholars to imagine that Peter had to refer in turn to all three written Gospels, as they themselves do when seeking to unravel the relationships between them. Being the chief eye-witness, Peter had everything under control; and the famous 'zigzag* effect is simply the result of his being able to visualise effortlessly and at will both his own vivid memory of Matthew’s wording as well as Luke’s words then in front of him, while simultaneously formulating his own words of each particular event, sometimes being closer to Matthew’s, sometimes to Luke’s text.

 

[Abu]

In 1982, Dom Bernard Orchard, O.S.B., alerted Catholics to the dangers of false Catholic scholarship, as English scholar John Beaumont has recalled in an article (“Kulturkampf and the Gospel”) in “Culture Wars”, Dec 1996:
"Since 1946, the majority of Catholic professors of the New Testament have given their support to the hypothesis of the priority of the Gospel of St. Mark, on grounds . . . of internal evidence alone.

“In practice, this has meant that they deny that the Apostle St. Matthew could have published his own Gospel; and this, in turn, amounts to saying that all the Church Fathers and early Councils erred on a matter of fact in saying St. Matthew wrote his own Gospel. In other words, the modern biblical ‘authorities’ are committed to denying that the Church has accurately transmitted the true tradition regarding the authorship of the Gospels.”

It is generally accepted by scholars that Luke and Matthew used the works of Mark and Q as sources for their gospels. Likewise, it is generally accepted that all three gospels were written originally in Greek, with the possibility of Aramaic as well. The authors of the book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, in their research, show that those positions may not be right.

Bivin and Blizzard relate research by Dr. Robert L. Lindsey as to the history of the synoptic gospels. Within five years after the death of Jesus, a biographer (believed to be Matthew) recorded the story of Jesus in Hebrew. At once, there was a demand in the Greek-speaking churches for a translation of the biography into Greek. A very literal translation was made. A few years later, stories and parts of stories were removed and arranged topically. Shortly after, a Greek author tried to reconstruct the story. Luke used the latter two of these records as his sources. Mark used Luke’s work and the topically-arranged Greek as his sources. Matthew used Mark’s work and the topically-arranged Greek as his sources. The current gospel may have been written by someone other than the Matthew who is believed to have written the original biography.

Thus, if this is correct, the original writing was composed in Hebrew, not Greek, or even Aramaic. The authors, throughout their book, present evidence to support their position. Statistics are quoted to show that over 90% of the Bible, including Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, was written in Hebrew, with about 1% in Aramaic, and the rest in Greek. If Bivin and Blizzard are right, there needs to be a change in thinking about the origin of the synoptic gospels and the resultant translations. They quote from Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, giving evidence that it was known in his day that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Eusebius himself had quoted other writers, Papias (Book III, Chapter 39, page 127), Irenæus (Book V, Chapter 8, page 187), Origen (Book VI, Chapter 25, page 245), and Eusebius himself (Book III, Chapter 24, page 108).
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/NEWBOOK.TXT

 

[Porknpie]

Mark’s sources were Matthew and Luke, not ‘Q’

Luke wrote before Mark, but Mark published before Luke.

Erich,

When I went to Marquette in the early 80’s, the synoptic gospel class taught that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark, that Mark wrote first. Sounds like the Star Wars quip, “Hans shot first”…have to be a Star Wars follower to understand humor.?

Thoughts on timing of writings?

 

[Abu]

A German scientist, Carsten Peter Thiede, director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, who, with Matthew D’Ancona wrote, *Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospel *(Doubleday, 1996), about a small piece of papyrus held at Magdalen College, Oxford, which is the oldest fragment of St. Matthew’s Gospel in existence today conclude that St Matthew’s Gospel is the first written.

The fragment contains disjointed segments of Matt. 26, but even more important than the writing style, which Thiede p(name removed by moderator)ointed to the time of Jesus’ life, is the use of KS, an abbreviated form of Kyrios, to refer to Jesus as Lord God — meaning that the ancient author believed that Jesus is divine.

Thiede, a papyrologist, furthermore concludes that St. Matthew’s Gospel must have been the first Gospel written. The implications of this are enormous. As Thiede and D’Ancona write in their book:
“Bultmann was wrong: The authors of the Gospel could hear far more than the faintest whisper of Jesus’ voice. Indeed, the first readers of St. Matthew may have heard the very words which the Nazarene preacher spoke during his ministry, may have listened to the parables when they were first delivered to the peasant crowd; may even have asked the wise man questions and waited respectfully for answers. The voice they heard was not a whisper but the passionate oratory of a real man of humble origins whose teaching would change the world.”

Having been show in post #12 the authoritative Pontifical Biblical Commission’s emphatic declaration that

1. ‘Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other Gospels
2. Scholars are not free to advocate the two-source theory whereby Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark and the “Sayings of the Lord” (“Q”),’
   it is now absurd for a Catholic to argue otherwise.

 

[fnr]

Having been show in post #12 the authoritative Pontifical Biblical Commission’s emphatic declaration that

1. ‘Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other Gospels
2. Scholars are not free to advocate the two-source theory whereby Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark and the “Sayings of the Lord” (“Q”),’
   it is now absurd for a Catholic to argue otherwise.

Abu,

Using the names as surrogates for the gospels’ authors, I think it’s hard to argue that Mark redacting Matthew makes more sense than Matthew redacting Mark. Redaction-criticism is one way to examine two texts and see which makes more sense.

If Matthew was first, what would cause the author of Mark to include the text in chapter 3:
*“20 He came home. Again [the] crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. 21 When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’”
*
when that text clearly makes Jesus seem crazy to those who know him best. Of course, you can argue that the Markan emphasis on those closest to Jesus were the last to understand him (family, Nazarenes, apostles) would motivate that, but the “out of his mind” line is pretty hard to suggest for purposes of enhancing evanglization.

The other theory, that Mark wrote his gospel first and that Matthew and Luke followed, is supported by their exclusions of Mark 3:21. Later authors redacted (edited) the text they quoted to make their work more consistent with contemporary orthodoxy. As noted earlier, we see that elsewhere in the New Testament, with 2 Peter selectively citing Jude. You can also see it in manuscripts of Mark, because the earlier ones end at 16:8, but later ones include either the “longer ending” or the “Freer Logion,” both of which include post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (16:9-20).

One of the criterion scholars use for critically evaluating the historical Jesus and early Christianity is the “embarrassment” to orthodoxy. For example, Romans 1:4 probably represents a pre-Pauline hymn or early creed reflecting the Adoptionism likely present in some early Christianity, which Paul felt compelled to include in his epistle (it’s especially odd since later in Romans, he makes claims for the eternal sonship of Jesus).

Overall, I think the preponderance of critical scholarship supports Markan priority and Q, plus independent material for the other synoptics (M and L). There is very little unique to Mark (the “Jesus is crazy” verse being one key example).

Of course, none of that means that the gospels aren’t informed by apostolic teaching!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all real people and were inspired by the Holy Spirit who is God.

Now if God the Holy Spirit inspired these men who were disciples–Matthew and John–and Mark and Luke who were friends of the disciples–what’s the problem?

They were real authors and probably wrote what they wrote based on MANY different sources BUT–here’s the REAL thing:

They prayed a lot to God the Holy Spirit asking what they should write and what they should omit!

They all knew much about Jesus.

They weren’t a bunch of copy and pasters!

They wrote what the Holy Spirit led them to write for future christians and their salvation!

For example for all we know Jesus might have had a favorite coat that he liked to wear–or maybe He had a pet that he really enjoyed–John and Matthew saw Jesus–I’m sure they knew what color His hair was and what color His eyes were.

Why weren’t these things written? Because the Holy Spirit didn’t lead them to write such things!

Now they were all true authors and were not dictation machines–but they all either knew the Lord directly or had heard of Him from people who did know the Lord directly.

But knowing the Lord Jesus so well–I’m sure that they brought everything that they wrote in the gospels to the Holy Spirit as they wrote–there was probably MUCH about Jesus that didn’t survive the editing of their gospels as they were “led into ALL truth” by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised.

Look–the real SOURCE for the gospels was God!

Now the devil and “modernist scripture scholars” will give you all kinds of reasons why these four men couldn’t have wrote their gospels and they will never tell you that the Holy Spirit led them into all truth.

Don’t believe them!

The Catholic church for 1900 years taught consistently that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels. I’ll take the Catholic Church’s word over the centuries–and the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church over any modernists spouting Q source lies!

 

[Abu]

fnr #30
Overall, I think the preponderance of critical scholarship supports Markan priority and Q, plus independent material for the other synoptics (M and L).

Such “scholarship” is hardly correct but erroneous, and defies the definitive ruling of the Pontifical Biblical Commission which has not been changed.

No. 94 Roman Theological Forum July 2001
REDISCOVERING THE DECREES OF THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION
by Sean Kopczynski
“Sadly, however, the scholars went modern and embraced the rationalistic Protestant scholarship. Consider the following from the Jerome Biblical Commentary under the title Emergence of Catholic Critical Scholarship:
“Over-all, modern Catholic NT scholarship has consisted in a judicious selecting and combining of acceptable elements in Protestant scholarship; it is not yet following its own new paths. It has succeeded in convincing more intelligent Catholics that the ultraconservative biblical positions of the past are no longer tenable.”

“By adhering faithfully to the teaching of the Church, I now had enough information to complete my paper on the Synoptic Question. In my paper on ‘who wrote first?’ I employed the PBC decrees and other authoritative external evidence from the Fathers and Tradition. Happily, I was able to argue for Matthew first followed by Mark and then Luke. This approach and solution soothed my conscience, strengthened my faith, and made me smile at the narrowness of using only internal arguments.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html

Further, posts 27 and 29 relate the findings of genuine scholarship.

 

[fnr]

Such “scholarship” is hardly correct but erroneous, and defies the definitive ruling of the Pontifical Biblical Commission which has not been changed.

Uh… this document quotes the 1911-1912 PBC. But in 1993, the PBC issued a document that in no uncertain terms embraces the historical-critical method as a necessary (but not sufficient) element of Catholic exegesis.

The document you cite is not a Vatican document, but an interpretation of it by a priest involved in theology study. I think the 1993 document, with a foreword by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is a better way to orient our thinking on exegesis.

 

[Erich]

Erich,

When I went to Marquette in the early 80’s, the synoptic gospel class taught that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark, that Mark wrote first. Sounds like the Star Wars quip, “Hans shot first”…have to be a Star Wars follower to understand humor.?

Thoughts on timing of writings?

As I’ve mentioned on other threads, I was taught Markan priority in high school, and at the time I accepted it as “gospel truth.” But, I was never satisfied with the way that Markan priority doesn’t even begin to explain how the Synoptic Problem may be solved in a way consistent with the ancient historians.

Q becomes “necessary” only if one subscribes to the theory (and that’s all it is, a theory which first appeared sometime in the 19th century) that Mark’s gospel was written first and then used as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark suggest that Luke and Matthew were not independent of each other, and thus argue against the two-source hypothesis.

 

[Erich]

If Matthew was first, what would cause the author of Mark to include the text in chapter 3:
*“20 He came home. Again [the] crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. 21 When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’”
*
when that text clearly makes Jesus seem crazy to those who know him best.

From this link,

Luke’s arrival in Rome, with his gospel, must have electrified the Christians in the Rome and have become the centre of discussions.

Matthew had written for the Jews - to proclaim the fulfilment of the Hebrew prophecies. Luke’s Gospel was for the Gentiles. Extra information and any apparent contradictions or discrepancies would have raised questions. Also the question would have arisen as to the suitability of reading Luke’s Gospel in the churches.

There was a need for Peter to comment on the two documents. Orchard has suggested that Paul would have especially wanted Luke’s work to be accepted by Peter, so it could be use in his Gentile churches.

Another consideration could have been that when an evangelist entered a town, it was customary to first visit the synagogue. Using Matthew’s Gospel, a nucleus of Jewish believers would be formed and these used to preach to the Gentiles. But Paul was planning to go to Spain where few synagogues existed. An endorsement of Luke’s Gospel would enable Paul to use it to open his preaching.

This situation would have led to the decision to hold a day-long conference where Peter could address the community. The task before Peter would not have been easy. The two documents would need to be closely examined, line by line, by Peter, Luke, Paul, Mark and probably others.

Orchard suggested that Peter’s commentary consisted of five half-hour talks. If we accept this suggestion we may presume there were 15 or 30 minute breaks between each talk.

A longer break at midday would allow time for lunch, rest, prayer and informal discussion. Following the end of the fifth talk, a time would have been allowed for the audience to ask questions. Starting at say 10 am the conference would have concluded at about 6 pm.

Not only Peter but the secretaries would have needed to be well prepared. These secretaries, with the scrolls opened and marked at key places, would direct Peter’s eyes to relevant passages with the aid of a Yad (pointer) according to Hebrew custom.

As there were five talks, there are ten places where Peter starts to quote from Matthew or Luke. It would have been easy to open the scrolls at these locations and have them ready at the start of each talk. In a further eight places, where Peter would have needed to switch from one Gospel to the other, the words are close together and therefore the scrolls could remain open without need for any movement.

There are six places involving slightly longer jumps. This would not be difficult when previously planned and with secretaries to assist. There is a jump (the longest) of 31 verses which would have required the skilled help of a secretary. It is interesting that Peter interjects a line of his own at this point, perhaps to provide the secretary with more time to locate the place.

The whole day could have been as well-organised as when a speaker today co-operates with assistants working a slide projector. Mark would have sat nearby to write down Peter’s talks in shorthand. Only a part of a scroll would be used, the recorded words would be in Peter’s poor grammatical Greek (i.e. Koine) and his slips not edited.

Not planned to be a new Gospel, Peter would not consider his talks as of enduring interest. Peter would be indifferent to Mark making copies for those present on the Day. Clement of Alexandra recorded this detail: “And when Peter got to know about it [Mark’s Gospel] he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or promote it”. [For longer extract see Chapter 9]. It was later that Peter’s attitude changed and a second edition authorised.

This raises an interesting point. If Mark’s Gospel had been the first Gospel to be written, and therefore the ‘flagship’ of the Christians, why was Peter so indifferent regarding its promotion? On the other hand, if we accept that two well constructed Gospels already existed, and that Peter had merely preached a series of commentaries based on them, Peter’s attitude is understandable.

 

[Erich]

The other theory, that Mark wrote his gospel first and that Matthew and Luke followed, is supported by their exclusions of Mark 3:21.

Perhaps you have an answer, then, to the point raised in my previous post, namely, if Mark’s Gospel had been the first Gospel to be written, and therefore the ‘flagship’ of the Christians, why was Peter so indifferent regarding its promotion?

 

[Abu]

Fnr #33
Uh… this document quotes the 1911-1912 PBC. But in 1993, the PBC issued a document that in no uncertain terms embraces the historical-critical method as a necessary (but not sufficient) element of Catholic exegesis.

So what?

The overriding fact is that the reconstituted Pontifical Biblical Commission does not now have the same authority as the Pontifical Biblical Commission up to 1964. Because the authority of the original PBC has been ignored, it should be noted that Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church. This extension of the Magisterium was later removed after the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Ratzinger writes: “The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars …” (5) **Its promulgated decrees were and remain to this day ordinary Magisterial teaching. But after Vatican II the PBC no longer enjoyed this authority.**Note
5. Preface to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993.
rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html

From 1907 to 1933 the Pontifical Biblical Commission emphatically stated:

1. ‘Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other Gospels
2. Scholars are not free to advocate the two-source theory whereby Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark and the “Sayings of the Lord” (“Q”).’
   The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 34].

This cannot and has not been rescinded.

In 1911 the PBC issued the decision that Matthew is the true author of the Gospel published under his name; the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew before the destruction of Jerusalem. See What Does The Church Really Say About The Bible, Edith Myers, The Wanderer Press, 1979]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis, delivered in New York City on January 27, 1988: “As to the ‘scientific’ and ‘historical’ character of the historical-critical method, the Cardinal remarked: “Now, at a certain distance, the observer determines to his surprise that these interpretations, which were supposed to be so strictly scientific and purely ‘historical,’ reflect their own overriding spirit, rather than the spirit of times long ago. This insight should not lead us to skepticism about the method, but rather to an honest recognition of what its limits are, and perhaps how it might be purified.”

Benedict XVI’s Address to Synod: “Dualism Between Exegesis and Theology Must Be Overcome”
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 19, 2008
The Council says, following a fundamental rule for any interpretation of a literary text, that Scripture must be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was written and thereby indicates three fundamental methodological elements to bear in mind the divine dimension, the pneumatology of the Bible: one must, that is 1) interpret the text bearing in mind the unity of the entire Scripture; today this is called canonical exegesis; at the time of the Council this term had not been created, but the Council says the same thing: one must bear in mind the unity of all of Scripture; 2) one must then bear in mind the living tradition of the whole Church, and finally 3) observe the analogy of faith. Only where the two methodological levels, the historical-critical and the theological one, are observed, can one speak about theological exegesis — of an exegesis suitable for this Book. While the first level today’s academic exegesis works on a very high level and truly gives us help, the same cannot be said about the other level. Often this second level, the level constituted of the three theological elements indicated by Dei Verbum seems to be almost absent. And this has rather serious consequences.

In his address of October 14, 2008, to the constituents of the Fourteenth General Congregation of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI commented on the need for critical analysis of the biblical text to be thoroughly informed by the hermeneutics of faith, as called for in Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council. Catholic form-critics do not deny their faith; they simply do not use their faith when they are doing their form-critical thinking. Often they strive to put their form-criticism aside when they are saying their prayers, but they also often preach and think about the results of this method which tend to call into question the theology that they have learned. And that is a big reason why this dualism of exegesis and theology must be overcome, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “for the life and the mission of the Church, for the future of faith.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt143.html
[My emphases].