Do Catholics have to believe books in the Bible were written by the traditional authors?

[Abu]

Gary Sheldrake #39
“Most modern scholars”,

who are not Catholics, so favoured by Gary Sheldrake, cannot be compared by any real Catholic to Pope Leo XIII’s confirmation of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, and its clear identification of what the Church accepts – which has never been changed. Thus the assumption that these “modern scholars” should be even considered, is pointless for real Catholics.

Real Catholics know whom to trust and what to believe.

 

[Abu]

Gary Sheldrake #39
“Most modern scholars”,

who are not Catholics, so favoured by Gary Sheldrake, cannot be compared by any Catholic to Pope Leo XIII’s confirmation of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, and its clear identification of what the Church accepts – which has never been changed. Thus the assumption that these “modern scholars” should be even considered, is pointless for Catholics.

Catholics know whom to trust and what to believe.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

who are not Catholics, so favoured by Gary Sheldrake, cannot be compared by any Catholic to Pope Leo XIII’s confirmation of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, and its clear identification of what the Church accepts – which has never been changed. Thus the assumption that these “modern scholars” should be even considered, is pointless for Catholics.

Catholics know whom to trust and what to believe.

Good Morning Abu: Modern scholarship is relevant to people of any religion. Many of the early church leaders that yourself and others on this thread have mentioned as credible ancient sources such as Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Hippolytus of Rome, Theophilus of Antioch and the like fixed the time of the creation of the world at roughly 5,500 years BC. We now know that these gentlemen were billions of years off, and as a modern human, I am fairly certain that rather than the world being created in the manner they believed, it developed as gases formed to create stars made mostly of helium and hydrogen and that dead stars produced the heavier elements from which most of the observable universe is made. I am also fairly certain that the human condition as it relates to suffering and evil are not by design of a wily talking serpent. All of this is in contention with what these men thought. Yet in the modern world these things are common knowledge.

The Catholic Church does not require me as a Catholic to deny modern scholarship, modern science or practical common knowledge, and doesn’t consign me to seeing such things as “pointless” as you have suggested.

Thank you
Gary

 

[Erich]

I think that if the Apostles were meant, they would have said “The Apostles.”

They did. You keep ignoring the “apostles and” part of “apostles and apostolic men”.

Or are you just looking for a more awkward phraseology, such as “For what the Apostles preached, in fulfilment of the commission of Christ, afterwards -]they/-] the Apostles themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed onto us in writing: … the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”

 

[Erich]

Most modern ones do not.

If you only want to admit “modern" writings then you certainly can’t use anything which made its first appearance in the 19th century.

I am open to any plausible theory, and am not invested in any particular one.

If you were to collect the external evidence (what the early historians wrote) and the internal evidence (modern literary analysis of the texts), you would know:

+ Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

• In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.

• Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.

• When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.

• A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.

• Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.

• Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).

• The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent poor Greek of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.

• By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.

based on the writings of (among many others):

Papias (c. 60-139) – whose life span overlapped that of the Apostle John by 30-40 years. Papias was the bishop of Hieropolis (about one hundred and fifty kilometers from Ephesus along a good surfaced road), so contact with the Apostle John would have been easy.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) – whose last years were spent in Ephesus, where the elderly members of the community would certainly remember the Apostles who had lived in or visited the town, and

Irenaeus (born about 120 AD near Smyrna) – who as a young man frequented the house of bishop Polycarp in Smyrna, who was himself also a disciple of the Apostle John.

From Why, How, and When the Gospels:

For two hundred years those aiming to  destroy Christian civilization have been undermining belief in the  historical reliability of the Gospels. They have had much success and,  even in devout Christian Circles, they have brought about an attitude of  widespread hesitation. This has lead to the comprehensive historical  evidence, regarding the writing of the Gospels, to be rarely publicized  today.

Yet when we go back to the original sources we find that it is easy to build a clear picture of what occurred. **The evidence of ancient historians, modern literary analysis and church documents is available in the booklet: ‘The Authors of the Gospels’, available elsewhere on this web site. However, when examining this evidence in detail, piece by piece, it is easy to lose sight of the overall picture. **This article aims to provide this overall picture while keeping references to a minimum. …

I encourage all to take the time to read The Authors of the Gospels, *in its entirety.

 

[po18guy]

Let’s re-format the question: Do Catholics have to believe most scholars?

No!

Those names were not picked out of a hat. Why do “modern scholars” assume that, the further away from something they are, the more they know about it? The observable concept of entropy applies to history as well as to physical matter and energy. The same evidence that leads toward a conclusion can also lead away from it.

Some modern scholars seem to assume that 1,900+ years of Christians have lived their lives and gone to their deaths clinging to romantic legends about the provenance of the Gospels.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Erich:

If you only want to admit “modern" writings then you certainly can’t use anything which made its first appearance in the 19th century.

Good Morning Erich: I would offer that you can if it is an ongoing process that didn’t end in the 19th century.

Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

I’m sure he did, but no one claims to have a copy of a gospel written by Matthew in Hebrew or any other language. The most we can say is that we do have gospels written in the tradition of Matthew.

In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.

Insofar as I am aware, this is true. However, it doesn’t make a case for the Gospel of Matthew having been written by Matthew.

Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.

It would be interesting to see how the order of authorship helps to define authorship.

When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.

I know the current sequence, but didn’t know who first used it. Thank you for the information on that.

A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.

I know that the authors of the gospels borrowed from one another, but I am unable to connect that to a particular authorship.

Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.

Your knowledge of bible history is excellent and I would like to acknowledge that. However, I am not making a connection between these facts and authorship.

Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke .

Since what Peter spoke about and what the gospels say are on the same subject, and follow roughly the same storyline, I am wondering how we would determine that Peter was quoting from the gospels or if the gospels were simply following the same story traditions that Peter and others were teaching. I ask this because there are certain logical problems with this idea. In particular, I would find this more intriguing if Peter is found somewhere prefacing a statement with “According to the Gospel of Mark.” If this turned out to be the case, I would find this very interesting, but at the same time curious, because I wonder why an eyewitness to the life of Christ would chose to quote an account other than his own. Specifically, why would Peter, who lived with Christ, choose to quote from Mark or Matthew? It would be rather like Buzz Aldrin quoting the Associated Press on a story about something Neil Armstrong said to him while the two of them were on the moon together.

The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests.

The complication that I see with this is in the idea of “distribution.” The words of Peter were spoken 1,500 years before the printing press or any other method of replication was possible other than copying by hand. What do we mean by “distributed?” What is being distributed, and how is it being distributed? As a follow-on question, how does this explain a particular process whereby Mark threaded any of this together in a work that formed a Gospel of Mark written in his own hand and put forth as such? We do not have a copy of it.

This explains the apparent poor Greek of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.

In my thinking, the poor Greek of Mark narrows down authorship to anyone alive at the time who wasn’t Greek. Lots of followers of Christ weren’t Greek.

Again, you have a lot of very good and enlightening information here and I thank you for sharing it, but I don’t see how any of it establishes authorship of the gospels.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Some modern scholars seem to assume that 1,900+ years of Christians have lived their lives and gone to their deaths clinging to romantic legends about the provenance of the Gospels.

Good Morning Poguy18: I think this hits the core of the discussion for some on this thread. I think that there’s an understandable existential anxiety that all of us a humans experience that makes what you have posited a rather grim and fearful prospect. Imagine 1,900 years plus of Christians living under the delusion of romantic legend. A dismal scenario. Therefore, many seek some sort of officially approved certainty. Because we want to be sure, don’t we? But extracting our experience of God or Christ on any writings puts us in that exact situation, because I am suggesting that God is right here for us to experience right now. This is the experience that matters. I have said before that people see God everyday, but keep looking for God in books, rituals, dogma, theology and official bulls. All of this is not even secondary to the direct experience of God that is freely accessible to everyone. When we have learned to see God face to face and live with God fully in our own daily existence, all of this matters much less. For me, it hardly matters at all, because the only certainty anyone needs is in the manifest reality of God present in their own lives. But for this to happen, you have to get out there and be part of it. It’s about getting your own show on the road. We were not born to live on the fumes of lives that came and went before. Otherwise life would be about Peter, Paul, Jerome, Clement and the like, and there would be no point in our having lived at all. But it is about us. Right here and right now. So what is your experience of God? What is *your *account? What is your gospel? That is what we are here for. Experience is the purpose of existence. All things that matter come in the form of experience - love, happiness, hate, anguish, divine revelation - all of these are experience. And we don’t instruction for that. We just get out there and make it happen.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[po18guy]

Good Morning Poguy18: I think this hits the core of the discussion for some on this thread. I think that there’s an understandable existential anxiety that all of us a humans experience that makes what you have posited a rather grim and fearful prospect. Imagine 1,900 years plus of Christians living under the delusion of romantic legend. A dismal scenario. Therefore, many seek some sort of officially approved certainty. Because we want to be sure, don’t we? But extracting our experience of God or Christ on any writings puts us in that exact situation, because I am suggesting that God is right here for us to experience right now. This is the experience that matters. I have said before that people see God everyday, but keep looking for God in books, rituals, dogma, theology and official bulls. All of this is not even secondary to the direct experience of God that is freely accessible to everyone. When we have learned to see God face to face and live with God fully in our own daily existence, all of this matters much less. For me, it hardly matters at all, because the only certainty anyone needs is in the manifest reality of God present in their own lives. But for this to happen, you have to get out there and be part of it. It’s about getting your own show on the road. We were not born to live on the fumes of lives that came and went before. Otherwise life would be about Peter, Paul, Jerome, Clement and the like, and there would be no point in our having lived at all. But it is about us. Right here and right now. So what is your experience of God? What is *your *account? What is your gospel? That is what we are here for. Experience is the purpose of existence. All things that matter come in the form of experience - love, happiness, hate, anguish, divine revelation - all of these are experience. And we don’t instruction for that. We just get out there and make it happen. Thank you,
Gary

A thoughtful response. Catholics and Orthodox have the wonderful blessing of the Mass/Divine Liturgy, in which we stand not only in God’s presence, but also that of the Holy Spirit, of Christ, and of the entire host of heaven! Even more, we become partakers of the Divine Nature. Partakers. A physical and spiritual sharing, through which God’s mercy and grace flow into us, via the grace of faith. This is where the rubber hits the road. The Presence of Christ. We eat His Body, and Drink His Blood - exactly as He commanded. And, we can go and spend time in His presence 24/7. This is my reality, and I pray for the day when it is the reality of all Christians, if not of all the earth.

As to the authors of scripture, many we do not know. This is part of the essence of our faith. Man, by nature, likes proof. Yet, proof can be corrosive to faith. 2,000 years ago, many asked for “a sign” - proof. Our Lord reproved them for their lack of faith. Since we are justified by faith, rather than proof, I am perfectly content with faith. The best definition of faith in all of the writings of the world is by the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebtrews (11:1).

What is faith? It is that which gives substance to our hopes, which convinces us of things we cannot see.

Until the Parousia, mankind will argue over the author of the Letter to the Hebrews - when the actual author is the Holy Spirit! It is believed that the inspiration was given to Paul, although he may not have penned the letter personally. The Church has tested the content of the letter and declared it to have been inspired. That is all the “proof” that I need. Tradition asserts that various men penned the words of the Gospels as inspired by the Spirit. Since that is good enough for the greatest Saints that have ever lived, it is more than good enough for me.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From po18guy:

Since we are justified by faith, rather than proof, I am perfectly content with faith.

Good Evening Po18Guy: I agree completely.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[powerofk]

Until the Parousia, mankind will argue over the author of the Letter to the Hebrews - when the actual author is the Holy Spirit! It is believed that the inspiration was given to Paul, although he may not have penned the letter personally. The Church has tested the content of the letter and declared it to have been inspired. That is all the “proof” that I need. Tradition asserts that various men penned the words of the Gospels as inspired by the Spirit. Since that is good enough for the greatest Saints that have ever lived, it is more than good enough for me.

 

[Erich]

I would offer that you can if it is an ongoing process that didn’t end in the 19th century.

Far from “not ending in the 19th century,” the idea that anyone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them (and that Mark wrote first) started in the 19th century.

Since what Peter spoke about and what the gospels say are on the same subject, and follow roughly the same storyline, I am wondering how we would determine that Peter was quoting from the gospels or if the gospels were simply following the same story traditions that Peter and others were teaching.

Clearly you have not read The Authors of the Gospels.

What do we mean by “distributed?” What is being distributed, and how is it being distributed? As a follow-on question, how does this explain a particular process whereby Mark threaded any of this together in a work that formed a Gospel of Mark written in his own hand and put forth as such?

Clearly you have not read The Authors of the Gospels.

In my thinking, the poor Greek of Mark narrows down authorship to anyone alive at the time who wasn’t Greek. Lots of followers of Christ weren’t Greek.

Including all of the original Apostles. We know that Mark accurately recorded what Peter had said in his talks. Mark did not make an error in doing this. Peter had made slips and Mark accurately recorded them.

I don’t see how any of it establishes authorship of the gospels.

I was taught Markan priority in high school, and at the time I accepted it as “gospel truth.” But, Markan priority doesn’t even begin to explain how the Synoptic Problem may be solved in a way consistent with the ancient historians, modern methods of literary analysis and Dei Verbum – which is why I now have a problem accepting Markan priority as a valid theory.

 

[Erich]

From Why, How and When the Gospels:

The Markan Priority theory has undermined, in many minds, acceptance of the historical reliability of the Gospels. Its advocates claim that Mark, who never knew Christ, wrote the first. As Matthew and Luke based their Gospels on Mark, this shows they were not able to give an eyewitness account of Christ’s public life.

Those opposing this theory have been ineffective in disproving it, because they have clung to the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence, used by Jerome in the 4th century. But other scholars have proposed an answer based on evidence provided by Bishop Clement of Alexandria and others, who lived 200 years before Jerome. Together with modern literary analysis, they have produced a convincing alternative to Markan Priority. So let us look at their scenario.

Matthew, as a former tax collector, was educationally equipped to provide a structure for the earliest Christian meetings. These consisted of prayer, the singing of psalms, listening to a teacher, meditating on the life of Christ and breaking bread together.

Hebrew was still known in the Holy Land, but Aramaic used in normal conversation. We do not know which was used for the earliest Gospel, but analysis shows that our Gospel in Greek was translated from Hebrew.

It recounted the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish prophesies. The middle section was constructed in five parts, each consisting of a narrative and a discourse. Each part opens with, or similar: ‘And when Jesus had finished these sayings…’ To develop his five thematic parts, Matthew used events and stories from the public life of Jesus. By ignoring chronology, his gospel gives the impression that Christ’s public life lasted for one year.

When the Christian missionaries travelled through the Roman Empire, they would go to the synagogues first. As the Jews living outside Palestine mainly spoke Greek Matthew’s Greek version would have been ideal for gaining an initial group of converts. These would then go to preach to the local Gentiles.

Paul saw the need to have a Gospel written specifically for the Gentiles, so his secretary, Luke, ‘took the matter in hand’. According to the oldest tradition, this was the second Gospel to be written. Luke aimed to produce an account in chronological order and to separate the stories of what Jesus did from what he taught. So he gathered the teaching sections together and placed them in a central section. When borrowing verses from Matthew’s thematic work it was necessary to change many of the introductions so as to prevent apparent contradictions of timing.

Luke had not lived with Christ, but when Paul and Luke arrived in Rome, they saw the opportunity to have Luke’s work publicly authenticated by Peter. To do this, Peter gave a series of talks in kione (common) Greek. He quoted alternatively from Matthew and Luke, blending them together while adding a few additions of his own.

The infancy, Luke’s central section and the Crucifixion were omitted as being too dissimilar to enable blending. According to the practice of the time, Peter’s secretary Mark recorded Peter’s words in verbatim shorthand.

The two existing Gospels had been designed to fill standard papyrus rolls, but this new script was much shorter. When the large audience asked for copies, Mark provided it without editing out errors of memory, grammar and mannerisms (Peter was not a native Greek speaker). That is why Mark’s Gospel is often judged to be in ‘poor’ Greek. Peter was indifferent to its distribution until he saw the beneficial results. This led to the publication of a second edition. One version is twelve verses longer than the other. The last verses are in a different style and appear to be Peter’s answers to questions at the end of the talks.

Later the bishops of Asia Minor, together with the Apostle Andrew, asked John to answer the heretics spreading Gnostic versions of Christianity. The Gnostics believed in demi-gods, such as Light, Monogenes, Word (Logos) and Life. They denied Christ was God and creator of the world, and claimed that John the Baptist was superior to Christ. In preaching they made use of apparent ambiguities in the three existing Gospels. John answered the Gnostic arguments and closed his Gospel with chapter 20.

Then, about 95 AD, questions arose regarding the authority of Peter, and a rumour that John would never die. John answered these in his chapter 21.

So two eyewitnesses of Christ’s public life (ie: Matthew and John) wrote Gospels. Mark’s was the transcript of talks given by Peter (another eyewitness), and Luke’s, was endorsed by Peter. So eyewitnesses were involved with all the Gospels. The traditional Christian claim: ‘The Gospels were written by Apostles and ‘apostolic men’ is vindicated.

 

[po18guy]

There is a spirit that is impelling man to deconstruct the scriptures, to extract and dispose of their supernatural content, to question their provenance, to re-define their meaning. That spirit is not from God.

 

[annem]

po18guy

There is a spirit that is impelling man to deconstruct the scriptures, to extract and dispose of their supernatural content, to question their provenance, to re-define their meaning. That spirit is not from God.

Hi. Very true. About one third of biblical scholars are atheists/agnostics/doubters, such as Dom Crossan, a former priest, who fled Catholicism and has spent the rest of his life trying to destroy Christianity. Or Bart Ehrman, former fundamentalist, who frequently makes sneering references to Christian beliefs in his best selling books that attempt to destroy Christian belief. And then there are the doubters, like Vermes.

Most people acknowledge the bias on the part of believers. Very rarely is there any discussion of the bias of anti-theists.

One other problem no one ever mentions, but that is right at the heart of the discussion today, is that the scholars who are believers are - almost all of them - Protestants. Naturally, they have a bias in favor of Mark being the first gospel, rather than Matthew. It may not be a conscious one, but it’s there.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

Erich

The Markan Priority theory has undermined, in many minds, acceptance of the historical reliability of the Gospels. Its advocates claim that Mark, who never knew Christ, wrote the first. As Matthew and Luke based their Gospels on Mark, this shows they were not able to give an eyewitness account of Christ’s public life.

It has undermined it. Undoubtedly. Especially since the end of the gospel is likely tacked on after the fact,

I was taught Markan priority in high school, and at the time I accepted it as “gospel truth.” But, Markan priority doesn’t even begin to explain how the Synoptic Problem may be solved in a way consistent with the ancient historians, modern methods of literary analysis and Dei Verbum – which is why I now have a problem accepting Markan priority as a valid theory.

Nobody can suggest a way to solve the Synoptic problem after, lo, these many centuries of digging into it. I don’t think it can ever be solved, at least not by trying to pick out of the gospels the earliest strands of written texts. Because the earliest strands were oral, not written.

The Second Temple Jews believed in both oral and written scripture. The Catholic church is built on both the traditions left by the apostles and on the scriptures.

What we really need are Catholic biblical scholars.

God bless, Annem

 

[Abu]

annem #55
What we really need are Catholic biblical scholars.

We have them alright. However, some have been bamboozled into latching on to the so-called “scholars” who are unable to see the wood for the trees – the faithful ones are those to be followed.

In 1978, R. H. Fuller, one of the chief form critics, wrote in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, “It is ironic that just at the time when the limitations of the historical-critical method are being discovered in Protestantism, Roman Catholic scholars should be bent on pursuing that method so relentlessly.” By 1980, the same R. H. Fuller considered the method they followed so relentlessly to be “bankrupt.” [See Fr William G Most, *Catholic Apologetics Today, TAN, 1986, p 237].

 

[po18guy]

If a definitive argument is ever made for Markan priority, it only serves to bolster Peter’s position as the rock of Matthew 16! After all, John Mark travelled with Peter, heard his preaching, was Peter’s interpreter/translator and, according to Clement of Alexandria (150 AD - 215 AD), wrote the Gospel at the request of those who wanted what is essentially a written form of Peter’s preaching. Keeping in mind that Peter wrote about the twisting of scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16), Peter neither encouraged nor forbade Mark from reducing the Gospel to writing. I chose the verb “reducing” carefully.

 

[Erich]

If a definitive argument is ever made for Markan priority, it only serves to bolster Peter’s position as the rock of Matthew 16!

I think it does exactly the opposite. If Mark – not an eyewitness Apostle of Jesus – wrote first, why would Matthew – one of the Twelve – base his own Gospel on it? And why doesn’t Mark (or anyone else besides Matthew) say anything about Peter being the Rock? Markan priority clearly offers support for discounting the claims for papal authority which rest on the Peter passage in Matthew absent in Mark.

Matthew’s Gospel is the backbone of ecclesiastical authority and canon law. Breaking that back leads to a deconstruction of canonical authority based on the apostolic witness of the Church as traditionally understood.

 

[catholictiger]

pretty simple answer to this.

The Church has not and probably will not say anything on the authorship of the scriptures. What does matter is that, who ever wrote the scriptures were divinely inspired to do so. Moses could have not pinned a single word of the Pentateuch but that doesn’t mean it’s not divinely inspired. A Catholic is free to hold to almost any view of the authorship of scripture as long as it doesn’t undermine the authority and divine inspiration of the scripture.