Authorship of the Gospels

[fill4ted2]

I was wondering if I could get some information or resources that help explain the authorship of the gospels. I teach junior high religion and am concerned that in the textbook, they insinuate that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew and that John did not write the Gospel of John. They say instead that a Jewish Rabbi or a close acquaintance of the gospel writers was more likely to have written the gospel. Is there a place that I can go or a document that exists to get a definitive answer for this? Thank you.

 

[Fidelis]

See the Navarre Bible Commentaries for each of the Gospels. Each give reliable and orthodox information about authorship, dating, etc (if I’m not mistaken there is an additional article in one of the volumes that talks about this very subject (Sorry, I’m not near my copies right now to verify that). If you don’t have access to those, see these Catholic Answers articles on the subject by Antonio Fuentes, the editor of the Navarre series:

Matthew
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9207ntg.asp
Mark
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411ntg.asp
Luke
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp
John
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309ntg.asp

Just out of curiosity, what is the name of the textbook you are using? That way I can avoid it and recommend others not use it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Saint Jerome tells us that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, by Matthew:

“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it.”
[Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 3.]

Eusebius records his understanding of the order in which the Gospels were written and by whom:

“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote. And when Mark and Luke had now published their gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing….”
[Eusebius, The History of the Church, Penguin Books, 3.24.6-7.]

Saint Jerome tells us how Mark came to write his Gospel:

“Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record.”
[Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 8.]

Bishop Eusebius adds that the faithful in Rome had to pester Mark quite a bit to convince him to write the Gospel:

“So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter’s hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go till they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by divine revelation of the spirit what had happened, the apostle was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorized the reading of the book in the churches.”
[Eusebius, The History of the Church, Penguin Books, 2.15.1-2.]

Saint Jerome describes the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Gospel of John:

When he was in Asia, at the time when the seeds of heresy were springing up (I refer to Cerinthus, Ebion, and the rest who say that Christ has not come in the flesh, whom he in his own epistle calls Early Church History Antichrists, and whom the Apostle Paul frequently assails), he was urged by almost all the bishops of Asia then living, and by deputations from many Churches, to write more profoundly concerning the divinity of the Saviour, and to break through all obstacles so as to attain to the very Word of God (if I may so speak) with a boldness as successful as it appears audacious. Ecclesiastical history relates that, when he was urged by the brethren to write, he replied that he would do so if a general fast were proclaimed and all would offer up prayer to God; and when the fast was over, the narrative goes on to say, being filled with revelation, he burst into the heaven-sent Preface: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: this was in the beginning with God.’ ”
[Jerome, The Commentaries, Matthew.]

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Yesterday, I posted the same links in a similar thread in this forum; if you can take the time to read them, I think you will find them to be of great assistance (especially see the ones which have the smilies beside them):

Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

The Consciousness of Christ
(for the purposes of understanding and defending the inerrancy and reliability of Sacred Scripture, you will want to read the Introduction and the Appendices of this book; the rest of the book deals with an important but different subject)

Basic Scripture

Authors of the Gospels
(also see the separate introduction to this work, The Gospels are Historical)

Why, How and When the Gospels?

What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum teach?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[fill4ted2]

Thank you all for the replies. I figured that the Gospel writers were authentic, I just wasn’t sure where to look, and Jerome, Eusebius, Tertullian, Augustine, and Origen are all very influential resources. Thank you so much for your help.

Why do you suppose that there are those who try to invalidate or discredit the Gospels by questioning their origin? Would these so called “Bible scholars” be considered dissenters?

Thanks again.

 

[asquared]

two good books for catechists working with youth, and for anyone embarking on bible study:
Teen guide to the Bible - Our Sunday Visitor, intro and brief study of each book of the bible, its authorship, content, intended audience, message in the context of salvation history and mission of Christ the Redeember. by Fr. McBride. Reflection, dialogue questions, and prayer for each chapter. Perfect adjunct to his Teen Catechism.

must read for all Catholics, and provides answers to OPs concerns is Guide to the Bible by Antonio Fuentes, Four Courts Press Dublin. most of us cannot afford the Navarre Bible Commentary but this little book summarizes that effort to provide orthodox Catholic teaching on the origin, content and message of each part of the Bible, and answers those confusing opinions of modern bible “scholarship”

the third essential book is Making Sense out of Scripture, reading the bible as the first Christians did by Mark Shea. It returns us to the mode of reading and studying scripture in the mind of the Church and away from the abuses of personal interpretation and heterodox “scholarship.”

The last two are for the catechist, the first is for the teens, and gives framework for the catechist on how to present the lesson.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Fill,

Who actually took pen in hand to compose this or that Gospel? These are discussions that do not affect our faith. The Gospels were not necessarily written in one session. More than one person can have contributed. They are the expression of the faith of the first Christians and they answered the needs of those communities.

What is important, and what explains that they were included in the Canon, is their apostolic origin, the fact that they reflect the teaching of an apostle or of* the* apostles.

Verbum

 

[Fidelis]

two good books for catechists working with youth, and for anyone embarking on bible study:
Teen guide to the Bible - Our Sunday Visitor, intro and brief study of each book of the bible, its authorship, content, intended audience, message in the context of salvation history and mission of Christ the Redeember. by Fr. McBride. Reflection, dialogue questions, and prayer for each chapter. Perfect adjunct to his Teen Catechism.

must read for all Catholics, and provides answers to OPs concerns is Guide to the Bible by Antonio Fuentes, Four Courts Press Dublin. most of us cannot afford the Navarre Bible Commentary but this little book summarizes that effort to provide orthodox Catholic teaching on the origin, content and message of each part of the Bible, and answers those confusing opinions of modern bible “scholarship”

the third essential book is Making Sense out of Scripture, reading the bible as the first Christians did by Mark Shea. It returns us to the mode of reading and studying scripture in the mind of the Church and away from the abuses of personal interpretation and heterodox “scholarship.”

The last two are for the catechist, the first is for the teens, and gives framework for the catechist on how to present the lesson.

I second these recommendations.

 

[Fidelis]

Hi Fill,

Who actually took pen in hand to compose this or that Gospel? These are discussions that do not affect our faith. The Gospels were not necessarily written in one session. More than one person can have contributed. They are the expression of the faith of the first Christians and they answered the needs of those communities.

What is important, and what explains that they were included in the Canon, is their apostolic origin, the fact that they reflect the teaching of an apostle or of* the* apostles.

Verbum

Though this dry and antiseptic attitude is common among speculative ivory tower “scholars,” it has done more to discourage the average person from reading the Scriptures than any other factor in our time. The fact that these scholars have speculated along this vein (and in their own rarified circles may be helpful) does not make it definitive or true, and certainly does not make the Scriptures more accessible or edifying for readers.

Right or wrong, like it or not, the average person does not find such speculation helpful. Instead, it tends to suck the life out of the Word of God.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Fidelis,

I think it is important to try and emphasize essentials. There are still Catholics who are disturbed by the fact that you and I might “chew” the host, because “Sister” told them it was a sin.

It is more comfortable to assert that the gospels were written at one sitting by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Well, Matthew and John were apostles, but why should the Church believe Mark and Luke? Because they are linked to apostolic teaching. Sticking to essentials will help the “simple” Catholic to face error without flinching.

As for the rest, I encourage you to avoid characterization, which does not help anyone.

Verbum

 

[Mystophilus]

We cannot be absolutely certain who the authors of the Gospels were, nor shall we be before we invent time-travel or have it all revealed to us by Almight God speaking from the heavens. Some will seize upon this gap, and claim other authors for those texts, or simply dispute the validity of the texts’ testimony about Jesus.

This is what happens when people learn enough to think that they know, but not enough to realise how ignorant we truly are. In point of fact, there are very, very, very few things which we truly know about anything, let alone the distant past.

We cannot prove, with arithmetical, 2+2=4 certainty, that Gaius Julius Caesar ever existed; we cannot prove that the Normans invaded England in 1066; we certainly cannot prove that the works of William Shakespeare were written by William Shakespeare. Why should we be able to prove that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

History, however, is not about proof. It is about reading as thoroughly as possible every source which we can locate, and then assembling what appears to be the most probable contingent image of the past which we can deduce from the available data. There are a great many testimonials to the existence of Gaius Julius Caesar, to the Norman invasion, to Shakespeare’s authorship, and, as pointed out by other posters in this thread, to the Four Evangelists having written the Four Gospels. There are no other contenders for these claims who are supported by as much testimony, which is exactly why we say that we think that history ran thus.

Why, then, do some scholars claim that someone else wrote Shakespeare’s works, or that the Holocaust never happened (thank you, David Irving), or that someone else wrote Matthew’s Gospel? All too often, they do it because it is easy, and because it is practically impossible to disprove, and because it gets them noticed, which will sell their books, grant them tenure, and generally further their careers.

Every once in a while, a good scholar will notice some discrepancy in the historical record, will track it down, and will then announce that we may well have been wrong all along. The academic world will acclaim this great discovery, lectures will be thrown out, books rewritten. On seeing this, a host of academics of inferior talent but superior ambition will set out to challenge some long-held idea, despite lacking any good basis for doing so. They will find the always-available grounds for doubt, and pursue them as if they were the gospel truth: they will make a career of it.

From the perspective of a literature student, as regards the authorship of the works of William Shakespeare or the Four Gospels,

• no such claim can be proved, and
• no such claim can be disproved, so
• no such claim is significant.

The same applies to the Gospels: we do not know that their supposed authors wrote them, we cannot know that their supposed authors wrote them, but we do not need to know that their supposed authors wrote them, and we only actually suppose that those people wrote them because, given the data which we have, those people are the most likely candidates. Thus, we continue with our understood view of history until someone can demonstrate that it is flawed.

 

[Fidelis]

Hi Fidelis,

I think it is important to try and emphasize essentials.

I agree. And that is why I maintain that changable scholarly speculation has no place in a popular or parish Bible study, let alone in a homily.

There are still Catholics who are disturbed by the fact that you and I might “chew” the host, because “Sister” told them it was a sin.

Sorry but, though you might not mean it that way, I find that condesending…

It is more comfortable to assert that the gospels were written at one sitting by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

…as is this.

Well, Matthew and John were apostles, but why should the Church believe Mark and Luke? Because they are linked to apostolic teaching.

Or because… they were Apostles?

Sticking to essentials will help the “simple” Catholic to face error without flinching.

I do not think academic speculation qualifies as “essential” for most people. And **speculation ** and theory is what it is, only as good as the next one that comes along. I don’t mind scholarly speculation, but it should not be presented as fact. Historical and textual criticism has become a dogma unto itself.

As for the rest, I encourage you to avoid characterization, which does not help anyone.

When it comes to speaking of those who’s work I have seen turn off scores of people from reading the Scriptures, I don’t believe any characterization is too strong. :tiphat:

 

[Michael_G]

I was wondering if I could get some information or resources that help explain the authorship of the gospels. I teach junior high religion and am concerned that in the textbook, they insinuate that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew and that John did not write the Gospel of John. They say instead that a Jewish Rabbi or a close acquaintance of the gospel writers was more likely to have written the gospel. Is there a place that I can go or a document that exists to get a definitive answer for this? Thank you.

The New American Bible/St. Joseph Bible compliments of the American Bishops also says that Mathew etc did not write the Gospel of Mathew. This is gross error, herasay in my book runs contrary to the entire early history of the Church, all the Gospel writers were identified in those first few centuries and confirmed a number of times.

Fathers of the Church by Doctrine
cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

The Church cannon of Scripture
cin.org/users/jgallegos/canon.htm

**Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered… Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language (Papias of Hierapolis

Fragments from the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord 90 AD)
Chap IX
For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”(8) Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.(9) But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for(10) the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;”(11) and also, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity;(12) for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”–pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. CHAP. X.–PROOFS OF THE FOREGOING, DRAWN FROM THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE.
CHAP. XI–PROOFS IN CONTINUATION, EXTRACTED FROM ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. THE GOSPELS ARE FOUR IN NUMBER, NEITHER MORE NOR LESS. MYSTIC REASONS FOR THIS. **(Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies Book III Chap XI 180 AD)

the Gospels of John and Matthew–whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s(15) whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form(16) of the Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul. (Tertullian Bokk IV Chap V of the Five Books Against Marcion 212 AD

**Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.”(2) And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by(3) Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. **Last of all, that according to John. (Origin Commentary on the Gospel of Mathew 244AD

---

 

[TOME]

First, I think it is important that I state that I believe that the Gospels have their origins in the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles. They are Apostolic in their original source. I think this is important to state because from what I have read among the post here and what I infered from the title of this thread, some may conclude that I am contradicting myself what I also say that I find the theory of Mark being the first of the gospels written, plausible and with merit and I think it is the correct theory.

I think there is substantial internal evidence among the synoptic gospels to give me more than enough reason to hold to this theory. Language, brevity, the editing of sayings and events are just a few peices of evidence I concur point to the fact Mark was written first.

Also, I fail to see how the use of modern scriptural scholarship that points to Mark being the first gospel in and of itself attacks the Church in anyway. Again if what the scholars are saying is properly understood. (Of coarse there are those who will use this same evidence for the wrong reasons and attack the Church, but we find humans using something that is good for evil purposes all the time).

My starting point in all this is I approach the gospel for what they truly are: Faith Documents. Documents which give to us the faith response of particular people at a particular time and place but contain God’s revelation, the Gospel message, for all people and for all times.

I would like, however, to focus or present just one aspect on how or why some have concluded that the order of the gospels may not be the traditional order we find. I focus on what was handed on to us by the Fathers.

From what I have read from various authors who reject the concept that Mark was first, the citations of Pipias as given by Eusebius is an important piece of evidence for the priority of Matthew over Mark and Luke. However, I have also read other works that call into question the accuracy of this evidence.

 

[wifrost]

Greetings all,

I’ve been trying to come to an answer on this for some time now. I’ve been considerating joing the Catholic or Orthodox Church for a while now (and giving a faint ear to Islam).

So here’s what has been going through my mind lately on this:

I think it’s possible that those people (or some of them) whos names are given to the Gospels may not have written them, but that wouldn’t immediately mean it wasn’t their gospel. For example: If Matthew actually wrote the gospel attributed to him he wrote in the third person about himself twice (matt 9:9, 10:3). In the gospel of John 21:24-25 it seems that the gospel as we have it is a re-write, or at least these verses were added.

But they very much could have been the gospel that each had told, and then were written down by someone else. I think this would easily fall into the Tradition of the Church, as scripture is part of Tradition.

But one thing that I have a more difficult time wrapping my mind around is 2nd Peter. The intro from the New American Bible says this:
“…Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter accoring to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.
The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers to the apostles and “our ancestors” as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (3:2-4). A collection of Paul’s letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (3:14-16). The passage about false teachers (2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of “scoffers” who have concluded from the the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter…”

Simply put, how could a work that is based on a lie (someone calling himself the apostle Peter, but not being him) make its way into a book called the word of God? That sounds a bit harsh I know, I’m not trying to be rude, but it seems a bit hard to swallow, ya know?

 

[TOME]

I apologize that my first post was imcomplete, other matters took me away as I was writing and this is the first opportunity I have to complete my thoughts.

Again, from what I have read there are questions concerning using Pipias’ work “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord” as presented in Eusebius’ history of the Church.

One of the questions is who is the “John” Pipias writes about. I have in read several places, from authors who hold that Matthew was written first, that their conclusion is “John the Elder” is also John the Apostle. This conclusion is partly based on Eusebius quoting Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haeveses” where Irenaeus refers to Pipias as " the hearer of John and companion of Polycarp". Their conclusion being that given the time and place Pipias lived, this John is logically the “Apostle” John.

However, the problem with this conclusion is that in his history, Eusebius (3:39) writes, “Now Pipias himself in the introduction to his writings makes no claim to be a hearer or eyewitness of the Holy Apostles, but to have received the contents of Faith from those who were known to him”. Eusebius continues to qupte Pipias, " I would enquire about the sayings of the elders; what Andrew said, or Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and what Ariston says, and John the Elder, who are disciples of the Lord." Here, it may be concluded that John, and John the Elder. are two different people. Also, here Pipias seems to state that there was no direct contact with these men but was taught by others what these men proclaimed. Later, Eusebius writes of Pipias," Now in his own writings he transmits other narratives of the words of the lord which comes from the afore-mentioned Ariston and also from John the Elder." Again, while Pipias’ own word, as recorded by Eusebius quoting Irenaeus, admits Ariton and John the Elder were disciples of “The Lord”, it is clear Ariton is not an Apostle and as stated above there is a distinction between the Apostle John and John the Elder.

There is also what could be described as an apparent conflict as to the nature of the work of Matthew as describe by Pipias and Irenaeus.

First, Eusebius has both Pipias and Irenaeus stating that Matthew’s work was written in the Hebrew tongue or language of the Hebrew people. This, in itself, as most biblical scholars agree, is improbable given that Hebrew, at the time of Jesus and the Apostles was a language few people could read or write let along use as a common language. Aramaic, is the language of consesus.

Second, and perhaps more important for this discussion, Irenaeus states that, “Matthew published his “gospel” among the Hebrews in their own tongue”. However, Eusebius quotes Pipias as calling Matthew’s work not a “gospel” but “Oracles” i.e. “Logia” or sayings. A gospel implys narratives as well as sayings. It could be said that if Pipias’ description of Matthew as “Oracles of the Lord” this title and description would be a closer description of what today is commonly held to be the nature of the the “Q” source than a Gospel.

What I have been writing here is not an attack on whether or not the Gospels have their origins in the eyewitness accounts and the teachings of the Apostles. However, I have attempted to show how for many their understanding of how the gospels have come to us in todays form, may not have been through the means we traditionally thought. Also, to show in a weak way, how those who hold Mark as being older than Matthew, do so based on evidence, while it may be disputed -even rejected, should be understood and for me at least, not unreasonable. But I must emphasize that what I wrote is just one example it is by no means the total reason for the belief of the primacy of Mark over Matthew.

But in the end, the only important fact is the gospels are God’s Revelation to us and have come to us ultimately from the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think it’s possible that those people (or some of them) whos names are given to the Gospels may not have written them, but that wouldn’t immediately mean it wasn’t their gospel. For example: If Matthew actually wrote the gospel attributed to him he wrote in the third person about himself twice (matt 9:9, 10:3). In the gospel of John 21:24-25 it seems that the gospel as we have it is a re-write, or at least these verses were added.

My opinion is that each Gospel was substantially written by each evangelist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, but that other authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, completed them.

"…Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter accoring to a literary convention popular at the time.

this opinion of modern scholars is a break from the tradition (small t) of Biblical scholarship which has generally attributed both letter to Peter. I would suggest to you that only liberal modernist scholars think that way.

The author refers to the apostles and “our ancestors” as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (3:2-4).

I don’t interpret that passage in that way. Peter is simply reminding them that his teaching is in agreement both with the teachings of God in the OT times, and with the teachings of God through the other Apostles of the present time.

A collection of Paul’s letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (3:14-16).

This could easily have happened in the lifetime of Paul and Peter. Paul’s teaching was controversial, partly because he went to the Gentiles and most of the earliest Christians were Jews. But at a later date, not too much later, most Christians were Gentiles. So the controversy lessened in that sense, with time.

The passage about false teachers (2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa.

This is not really relevant to the dating of 2 Peter, unless one assumes a known date for Jude (which assumption would be precarious).

Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of “scoffers” who have concluded from the the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter…"

Peter is clearly referrring to the future ‘in the last days, there will come…’ using the future tense. Also, the return of Christ and the future could scarcely have been on their minds, since they did not know how far into the future his return would be. So Peter could have written this, being inspired by the Spirit to prophecy about the future (something modernist scholars scoff at, since they treat all Scripture as if it were merely a human work).

Simply put, how could a work that is based on a lie (someone calling himself the apostle Peter, but not being him) make its way into a book called the word of God?

First, if you are going to be Catholic (perhaps), then you must learn not to listen to every idea expressed by every scholar or theologian.

Second, based on the above comments, I would reject the precipitous hypothesis that Peter did not write 2 Peter. I believe that he did write it, although, like the Gospels, it could have been amended under inspiration later.

Third, the early Church Fathers sometimes referred to Mark’s Gospel as Peter’s Gospel, even though Peter had nothing to do with its actual writing, because Mark wrote it based on Peter’s teaching. 2 Peter could easily have begun with a letter by Peter, and have undergone some editing or amendation under inspiration, and still be Peter’s teaching.

Ron Conte

 

[Veritas41]

Thanks for starting this thread – I just ran into a similar situation at my parish last month. Our “pastoral associate” was leading a meeting of the catechists, and she made the comment that the books of the NT weren’t written by the apostles, but by their “communities.” Now I’ve got some information that will counter that!

 

[wifrost]

Thanks Ron. It can be difficult to sift through scholorly opinion and historical fact, as some scholors have a way of writing as if it were indeed fact, and not merely opinion. But again, thanks for the reply!

Ryan