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

[WingsOfEagles]

New Testament scholar Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (which, of course, are datable before 70 or 79). Needless to say, this redating was (and still is) rather controversial.

If the authors of the canonical gospels were not in fact Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, then why attribute the gospels to them at all? Or, as this link puts it, why not “Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette, while not forgetting the venerable ‘Q’.”

Because in ancient times, you were given credit if the ideas within the text were yours, even if you didn’t physically write the document.

 

[Erich]

Because in ancient times, you were given credit if the ideas within the text were yours, even if you didn’t physically write the document.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers.

Come to think of it, nor does anyone dispute that these writers did in fact write what was attributed to them.

In the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned. As for authorship, we do have records, the early Church fathers. There is NO evidence that anyone else claimed authorship for the work… and it is precisely those early Church fathers who tell us that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, etc.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers.

Come to think of it, nor does anyone dispute that these writers did in fact write what was attributed to them.

In the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned. As for authorship, we do have records, the early Church fathers. There is NO evidence that anyone else claimed authorship for the work… and it is precisely those early Church fathers who tell us that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, etc.

catholicherald.com/stories/Straight-Answers-Who-Wrote-the-Gospels,1253?sub_id=1253

 

[PJM]

=Bradthecatholic;12269080]Ok, so I don’t think there are any doubt that all the epistles attributed to Paul were actually written by him. Paul defiantly wrote his epistles. But, I’m talking about all the other books. Most scholars don’t believe the traditional authors wrote them. And from most of the evidence it doesn’t seem like they did. I’m not denying they are inspired, because they are, I just don’t think the authors that are have said to written them actually wrote them. Well, actually… I do think there is alot of evidence that Luke actually wrote Luke and Acts. But the other books like Matthew, Mark, and John. And even epistles like James, Jude, all the epistles attributed to Peter and John, and Revelation.

Also, I have a second question that doesn’t really have anything to do with the main question but I thought I just put it out there. What do you guys think of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Not the Gospel of Thomas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I have read it. It is interesting. It just tells a few story’s of the early childhood of Jesus. It even tells the story of Jesus teaching in the temple. The earliest date scholars give to it is at least 80 A.D, the latest is the 190 A.D. Is it possible some of the story’s in it are factual? I mean, look at the protoevangelium of James, it seems pretty factual, and many Catholics believe in it. Is it possible the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is factual? (And most scholars consider it not to be Gnostic.)

The authors of the bible are not nearly as significant as the bible itself. Only God knows the truth of who wrote what. That said. unless there is indisputable evidence of different authors, one ought to accept the Traditional ones.

As to your second question: the Fathers determined that there was insufficient evidence of its content and historical merit, so wisely did not include it.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Erich]

catholicherald.com/stories/Straight-Answers-Who-Wrote-the-Gospels,1253?sub_id=1253

You’re willing to accept extrabiblical tradition as authoritative revelation when it comes to the authorship of the books of the Bible, but you’re not willing to accept a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council which insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels? The above link seems to include way too many “may have’s” and “hard to say’s” and “probably’s” to be mistaken for anything other than the author’s opinion (though, to his credit, he acknowledges that “new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors”).

Instead of reading someone’s interpretation of what Dei Verbum says, how 'bout reading more of Dei Verbum? Specifically:

1. …The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

So the companions of Jesus wrote two Gospels and others, using second-hand information, wrote two. If all four depended on second-hand information (which would be the case if Mark is oldest), why a distinction between the two sets of authors?

Two of the Gospels – Matthew and John – are eyewitness accounts, written for two different audiences.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

You’re willing to accept extrabiblical tradition as authoritative revelation when it comes to the authorship of the books of the Bible, but you’re not willing to accept a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council which insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels? The above link seems to include way too many “may have’s” and “hard to say’s” and “probably’s” to be mistaken for anything other than the author’s opinion (though, to his credit, he acknowledges that “new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors”).

Instead of reading someone’s interpretation of what Dei Verbum says, how 'bout reading more of Dei Verbum? Specifically:

So the companions of Jesus wrote two Gospels and others, using second-hand information, wrote two. If all four depended on second-hand information (which would be the case if Mark is oldest), why a distinction between the two sets of authors?

Two of the Gospels – Matthew and John – are eyewitness accounts, written for two different audiences.

Okay, but you yourself have just admitted that two may not be eyewitness accounts. My point in the link was that a priest also states that we don’t entirely know authorship, which semi-proves we are not required to believe one way or the other if we accept that at any rate, the text is divinely inspired.

 

[dronald]

Okay, but you yourself have just admitted that two may not be eyewitness accounts. My point in the link was that a priest also states that we don’t entirely know authorship, which semi-proves we are not required to believe one way or the other if we accept that at any rate, the text is divinely inspired.

Luke himself admits that he gathered information from others. However the latter half of The Acts is written as an eye witness account.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

.

If the authors of the canonical gospels were not in fact Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, then why attribute the gospels to them at all? Or, as this link puts it, why not “Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette, while not forgetting the venerable ‘Q’.”

Good Evening Erich: I explained that in my post to which you replied. Experts in dating and studying the origins of texts look at a wide variety of things in making these conclusions. For instance, the first known copies of the canonical gospels were in Greek, and were titled “Gospel According to this person or that.” That particular preposition “According To” was used at the time and in that region as a device to indicate that the source of the information is someone other than the author, or an account that was handed down. There are many other means by which the dates and authorship are identified, and I would invite you to do your own research and to form your own conclusions.

That said, the Church takes no official stand on authorship, except to say that the Church believes them to be divinely inspired, intimating that the authors were in some way guided by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, I think it is wise for Catholics and Protestants alike to remember that the most important testimony of the life of Christ and tribute to God is to fully live and celebrate your own encounter with God. I think that our lives are about our own experiences and not intended to run off the fumes of someone else’s. God is right here, right now, everyday and in every place. Everyone sees God every day, but few know God when they see God. Jesus said this very clearly many times and in many ways, but in spite of this, most Christians seem to look for a far off idea to worship rather than the daily reality of God that is to be awakened to and immersed in real time. I am offering the idea that you can know God for yourself. It is for this reason that I don’t think that the truly faithful should fret over the authorship of this document or that. Each of us sees God everyday, and of course we know that very well. We just pretend that we don’t. Now, having seen God every day that you have lived, what is your account?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Abu]

Gary Sheldrake #28
the Church takes no official stand on authorship

As quoted in post #19 She certainly does,

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 (now 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.”

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

As quoted in post #19 She certainly does,

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 (now 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.”

Good Morning Abu: This is a subject that the Church posits no firm answer on in any official capacity because it can’t. The overriding gorilla in the room for anyone making such claims is the fact that the earliest known copy of any canonical gospel in existence is a fragment of one page from John dated at 125 years after Christ at very the earliest. This was obviously not penned by John. If you cannot produce a copy of anything penned by John or penned by Mathew, and if you cannot identify who penned what you do have (which was penned 125 years after Christ), then you cannot call the authors John and Mathew. Further, the earliest complete copies of any gospel date to 300 years after Christ. And every copy in existence even from those times are copies of copies of copies and so on. And all of these copies were made 1200 years before the printing press, so they were all hand done with corrections made by each scribe, with translations being made from one language to another continuously.

Basically, all that a truly honest 21st century human has in regards to these texts is a basic story line salted with some rather significant divergences between some of them in regards to the accounts of certain events. It just boils down to faith. There is no official original written account of the life of Christ known to be in the possession of humanity. This is why the best we can say is that we believe that what we have is divinely inspired.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Good Morning Abu: This is a subject that the Church posits no firm answer on in any official capacity because it can’t. The overriding gorilla in the room for anyone making such claims is the fact that the earliest known copy of any canonical gospel in existence is a fragment of one page from John dated at 125 years after Christ at very the earliest. This was obviously not penned by John.** If you cannot produce a copy of anything penned by John or penned by Mathew, and if you cannot identify who penned what you do have (which was penned 125 years after Christ), then you cannot call the authors John and Mathew.** Further, the earliest complete copies of any gospel date to 300 years after Christ. And every copy in existence even from those times are copies of copies of copies and so on. And all of these copies were made 1200 years before the printing press, so they were all hand done with corrections made by each scribe, with translations being made from one language to another continuously.

Basically, all that a truly honest 21st century human has in regards to these texts is a basic story line salted with some rather significant divergences between some of them in regards to the accounts of certain events. It just boils down to faith. There is no official original written account of the life of Christ known to be in the possession of humanity. This is why the best we can say is that we believe that what we have is divinely inspired.

Thank you,
Gary

By your own logic, then, neither can we say that Homer was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer lived in the 8th century BC, but the earliest extant copies of these two epic poems are from the 10th century AD. If you claim we can’t call John and Matthew the authors of the Gospels attributed to them due to a 200-300 year gap between when they lived and the earliest extant copies of their Gospels (assuming for the sake of argument that such is the case, as I haven’t looked at that claim myself and am taking your word for it), then, a fortiori, Homer cannot be claimed to be the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey due to an 1,800 year gap in between his life and the earliest extant copies of said poems.

And that is just one example. As an earlier post pointed out, the vast majority of works from antiquity are only extant in the form of copies made several hundred years after the authors that such works are attributed to lived. If your position is to be consistent, then you must claim that you cannot know who the authors of any of those works are either.

 

[Erich]

This is a subject that the Church posits no firm answer on in any official capacity because it can’t.

So, a *Dogmatic Constitution *on Divine Revelation from the Second Vatican Council is not “in any official capacity”? and does not posit firm answers? I beg to differ.

“The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold, that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached, in fulfilment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they 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”.

                         “… **the four Gospels** just named, **whose historical character                             the Church** unhesitatingly **asserts,** faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught                             for their eternal salvation...”

                         So the companions of Jesus wrote two Gospels and others,                             using second-hand information, wrote two. If all four depended on second-hand information, the Fathers of the Council                             would not have made a distinction between the two sets of authors.

Is this important?

Christians have always recognised that borrowing took place between the Synoptic Gospels (those according to Matthew, Mark and Luke). It had also been recognised that Mark’s Gospel was in poor grammatical Greek compared with the others and that Mark had not been an eyewitness Apostle.

                         200 years ago some Deists (claiming to believe in                             God, but not in Christ) said that a borrower would have improved the Greek, not have made it worse. So Mark must therefore have written prior                             to the others. This became known as ‘The Markan Priority theory’. They then said that if Matthew, an eyewitness                             Apostle, wrote the Gospel named after him he would not have based it on second-hand material from Mark. This meant                             that Matthew’s Gospel was written by an anonymous, non-eyewitness at a late date.

                         According to this theory the ancient historians, all                             of whom recorded that Matthew wrote first, made a serious error and were therefore unreliable. As the Church’s                             claims relied on these early historians, she could not prove she was founded by Christ. It also meant that what                             these historians recorded regarding Luke and John could also be seen to be unreliable. By, apparently logical steps,                             the whole position of the Church could be undermined.

You might want to rethink your position.

 

[Abu]

Gary Sheldrake #30
the Church posits no firm answer on in any official capacity because it can’t.

The Church has declared the reality: “…the Pontifical Biblical Commission was formally established by Pope Leo XIII in 1902, and in 1907, in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, Pope Pius X declared its decisions to be binding.” [Post 19].

No evidence of any kind has been produced to back up claims that the Church has not, and cannot, declare what is an historical fact – that of Pope Pius X’s declaration on the binding force of the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission 1907-12.

Denial of reality helps no one.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

By your own logic, then, neither can we say that Homer was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer lived in the 8th century BC, but the earliest extant copies of these two epic poems are from the 10th century AD. If you claim we can’t call John and Matthew the authors of the Gospels attributed to them due to a 200-300 year gap between when they lived and the earliest extant copies of their Gospels (assuming for the sake of argument that such is the case, as I haven’t looked at that claim myself and am taking your word for it), then, a fortiori, Homer cannot be claimed to be the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey due to an 1,800 year gap in between his life and the earliest extant copies of said poems.

And that is just one example. As an earlier post pointed out, the vast majority of works from antiquity are only extant in the form of copies made several hundred years after the authors that such works are attributed to lived. If your position is to be consistent, then you must claim that you cannot know who the authors of any of those works are either.

Good Evening SoMissCatholic: Your point is well taken, however, it should be pointed out that while there has been some speculation in regards to there possibly being some historical basis for the Iliad and the Odyssey, they are largely considered literary works rather than an historical account on which any religion is based. Therefore, these works being oral traditions handed down from Homer are much less an area of interest, because the overarching point is not to offer an eye witness account of an actual event. In other words, no one declares them to be a revelation of the primary existential truths of our very being, and therefore the degree to which written accounts on hand match the original oral traditions is not so much a point of interest as would be the case with the canonical gospels. Moreover, most scholars agree that the Iliad and Odyssey underwent a process of standardization and refinement out of older material beginning in the 8th century BC. Therefore, I would offer that the comparison isn’t as useful as it sounds upon first reading your post.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

So, a *Dogmatic Constitution *on Divine Revelation from the Second Vatican Council is not “in any official capacity”? and does not posit firm answers? I beg to differ.

“The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold, that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached, in fulfilment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they 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”.

                         “… **the four Gospels** just named, **whose historical character                             the Church** unhesitatingly **asserts,** faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught                             for their eternal salvation...”

                         So the companions of Jesus wrote two Gospels and others,                             using second-hand information, wrote two. If all four depended on second-hand information, the Fathers of the Council                             would not have made a distinction between the two sets of authors.

Is this important?

Christians have always recognised that borrowing took place between the Synoptic Gospels (those according to Matthew, Mark and Luke). It had also been recognised that Mark’s Gospel was in poor grammatical Greek compared with the others and that Mark had not been an eyewitness Apostle.

                         200 years ago some Deists (claiming to believe in                             God, but not in Christ) said that a borrower would have improved the Greek, not have made it worse. So Mark must therefore have written prior                             to the others. This became known as ‘The Markan Priority theory’. They then said that if Matthew, an eyewitness                             Apostle, wrote the Gospel named after him he would not have based it on second-hand material from Mark. This meant                             that Matthew’s Gospel was written by an anonymous, non-eyewitness at a late date.

                         According to this theory the ancient historians, all                             of whom recorded that Matthew wrote first, made a serious error and were therefore unreliable. As the Church’s                             claims relied on these early historians, she could not prove she was founded by Christ. It also meant that what                             these historians recorded regarding Luke and John could also be seen to be unreliable. By, apparently logical steps,                             the whole position of the Church could be undermined.

You might want to rethink your position.

Good evening Erich: Actually, I am not finding occasion to rethink my position based on any of this, because what you have posted is not in contention with what I have said. My sense is that you are reading a level of certainty into it that simply isn’t there. It is simply saying that the gospels are of apostolic origin based on what the apostles had preached. It does not in any definite language claim that “The Apostles” wrote or penned them. It goes on to say that based on these teachings, the gospels were written by “apostolic men,” who were guided by the Holy Spirit, which does not necessarily mean or imply “The Apostles” of biblical fame. Moreover, what I said matches this, because I said that the church maintains that they are divinely inspired teachings that have been handed down and were eventually committed to writing. I have never contended that the gospels were not written based on the teachings of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I am maintaining that they didn’t personally write them. They were written based on their teachings. there is a difference.

To that end, and for the third time, I would ask that you produce a copy of any of the four canonical gospels that was written by any of the Apostles, or even at the time that they lived. Such a text is not known to exist, hence the claim cannot be made and isn’t being made.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Good evening Erich: Actually, I am not finding occasion to rethink my position based on any of this, because what you have posted is not in contention with what I have said. My sense is that you are reading a level of certainty into it that simply isn’t there. It is simply saying that the gospels are of apostolic origin based on what the apostles had preached. It does not in any definite language claim that “The Apostles” wrote or penned them. It goes on to say that based on these teachings, the gospels were written by “apostolic men,” who were guided by the Holy Spirit, which does not necessarily mean or imply “The Apostles” of biblical fame. Moreover, what I said matches this, because I said that the church maintains that they are divinely inspired teachings that have been handed down and were eventually committed to writing. I have never contended that the gospels were not written based on the teachings of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I am maintaining that they didn’t personally write them. They were written based on their teachings. there is a difference.

To that end, and for the third time, I would ask that you produce a copy of any of the four canonical gospels that was written by any of the Apostles, or even at the time that they lived. Such a text is not known to exist, hence the claim cannot be made and isn’t being made.

Thank you,
Gary

Exactly. The quoted document actually backs up the argument that the apostles may not have been the ones to write everything down, but that they are at least their ideas.

 

[Erich]

It does not in any definite language claim that “The Apostles” wrote or penned them.

Au contraire.

**"**For what the Apostles preached … afterwards they themselves"

They – the Apostles – themselves (referring to Matthew and John)

“and apostolic men”

referring to Luke and Mark

 

[Erich]

I would ask that you produce a copy of any of the four canonical gospels that was written by any of the Apostles, or even at the time that they lived. Such a text is not known to exist, hence the claim cannot be made and isn’t being made.

Every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. Not to mention that every early historian was a lot closer to the events than we are today – and some of them did have copies of the canonical gospels written by the original authors.

Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history… and there’s plenty of historical evidence that two of the Gospels were written by Apostles and that the other two Gospels were written by “apostolic men” (as reiterated by Dei Verbum). See pages 8-16 of the referenced link.

Here’s just a sampling of the historical evidence:
Papias (c. 60-139)
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
Irenaeus (c. 120-180)
Muratorian Fragment (c. 150)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
Tertullian (c. 155-220)
Origen (c. 185-253)
Eusebius of Pamphilius (260-340)
St. Jerome (331 – 420)
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

From Luke and Acts:

The traditional belief is that the Gospel of Luke was composed by the companion of Paul in Greek no later than 65 AD. It was based on his personal research and extracts borrowed from the Gospel of Matthew. Those claiming this Gospel was written anonymously about 85 AD, or in the second century, deny the author was a companion of Paul.

The author declares his aim is to set out an orderly account of the events in the life of Christ and His followers. He does so in the form of a letter to Theophilus. In a second volume, known as ‘Acts’, the author continues the story from where he left it at the end of his Gospel. If it can be shown that Acts was composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that Luke’s Gospel was also composed prior to 70 AD.

The author of Acts records the conversion of Paul in his ninth chapter and then spends eighteen chapters detailing his travels with Paul. This included Paul’s arrest, voyaging, shipwreck, arrival in Italy and two years awaiting trial. But when we would expect details of Paul’s trial; sentence or release; there is an abrupt silence. The absence of this information is a clear indication that Luke completed Acts before 64 AD.

Acts ends at a time of peace for the church in Rome. Yet secular historians tell us there was a great persecution of Christians after 64 AD. As this does not appear in Acts, we have an indication that Acts was sent to Theophilus before this event.

This dating is confirmed by the way Jerusalem and its Temple are treated. Luke-Acts constitutes one third of the New Testament, yet contains two thirds of the references to Jerusalem. In the Gospel and Acts, the city is mentioned 31 times. We can see that the Temple and Jerusalem are very prominent in the thinking of the author. Yet he ignores their destruction, the civil and religious symbolism of such destruction and the impact on the life of the Church and her missionary preaching. Again, the obvious reason is that Jerusalem and the Temple were still standing at the time he wrote.
…
In four places in Acts (16: 10-17; 20: 5-15; 21: 1-18; 27: 1-28) the author uses the pronoun ‘we’, when recording the journeys of Paul. The obvious meaning is that the author was with Paul in the 60s. Those arguing against this meaning, claim ‘we’ could have been a stylistic device or that the author was copying from an old manuscript without adjusting the wording. But these claims are pure speculation to avoid acceptance of the clear meaning. Acts contains a whole range of pronouns such as: I, me, he, us and they. Together with ‘we’ they all fit naturally into the manuscript.

Paul, when acting alone, is referred to as ’he’. When Paul is separated from the author but with others, they is used. When Paul is with the author ‘we’ or ‘us’ is used.

Paul’s companions are referred to as ‘they’ until Paul arrives for the first time in Troas (Acts 16: 8) when ‘we’ and ‘us’ is used till Paul leaves Philippii with Silas (Acts 16: 40). ‘They’ is used again until ‘they’ return to Troas (Acts: 20, 5). Then for the remainder of the travels of Paul, the word ‘we’ is used.

It is common for a writer to give greater detail to events in which he has been involved compared with those he has learned of second hand. It is noticeable that the author deals at great length with the ‘we’ events at Philippi, yet provides a short summary of the ‘they’ passages (Acts: 16: 4-8; 18: 18-23).

For the remaining time the author is in such close touch with Paul that events are often recorded on a day-to-day basis. The suggestion that Luke was using the royal ‘we’, when meaning ‘I’, is contrary to the narrative. When he refers to himself in Acts 1: 1, he uses ‘I’.

All these (and more) observations point to Acts, and therefore also Luke’s Gospel, as being written some time before the death of Peter in 65 AD. Jerome stated that ‘Acts’ was completed in the fourth year of Nero which would be in 64 AD.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

[Fom Erich

Every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel.

Most modern ones do not.

Not to mention that every early historian was a lot closer to the events than we are today – and some of them did have copies of the canonical gospels written by the original authors.

They were also much closer to the building of the pyramids but could not name who built them, closer to the Big Bang but believed that the world was created in 6 earth days, were closer to the time of Neanderthals, yet knew nothing of them. Modern historians as well as modern truck drivers and modern well diggers know all of these things.

Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history.

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

Here’s just a sampling of the historical evidence:

Papias (c. 60-139)
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
Irenaeus (c. 120-180)
Muratorian Fragment (c. 150)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
Tertullian (c. 155-220)
Origen (c. 185-253)
Eusebius of Pamphilius (260-340)
St. Jerome (331 – 420)
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

It appears to be a list of people who believed certain things about the gospels, and not actually historical or material evidence in and of itself.

The traditional belief is that the Gospel of Luke was composed by the companion of Paul in Greek no later than 65 AD. It was based on his personal research and extracts borrowed from the Gospel of Matthew. Those claiming this Gospel was written anonymously about 85 AD, or in the second century, deny the author was a companion of Paul.

The author declares his aim is to set out an orderly account of the events in the life of Christ and His followers. He does so in the form of a letter to Theophilus. In a second volume, known as ‘Acts’, the author continues the story from where he left it at the end of his Gospel. If it can be shown that Acts was composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that Luke’s Gospel was also composed prior to 70 AD.

The author of Acts records the conversion of Paul in his ninth chapter and then spends eighteen chapters detailing his travels with Paul. This included Paul’s arrest, voyaging, shipwreck, arrival in Italy and two years awaiting trial. But when we would expect details of Paul’s trial; sentence or release; there is an abrupt silence. The absence of this information is a clear indication that Luke completed Acts before 64 AD.

…This dating is confirmed by the way Jerusalem and its Temple are treated. Luke-Acts constitutes one third of the New Testament, yet contains two thirds of the references to Jerusalem. In the Gospel and Acts, the city is mentioned 31 times. We can see that the Temple and Jerusalem are very prominent in the thinking of the author. Yet he ignores their destruction, the civil and religious symbolism of such destruction and the impact on the life of the Church and her missionary preaching. Again, the obvious reason is that Jerusalem and the Temple were still standing at the time he wrote.

…In four places in Acts (16: 10-17; 20: 5-15; 21: 1-18; 27: 1-28) the author uses the pronoun ‘we’, when recording the journeys of Paul. The obvious meaning is that the author was with Paul in the 60s. Those arguing against this meaning, claim ‘we’ could have been a stylistic device or that the author was copying from an old manuscript without adjusting the wording. But these claims are pure speculation to avoid acceptance of the clear meaning. Acts contains a whole range of pronouns such as: I, me, he, us and they. Together with ‘we’ they all fit naturally into the manuscript.

…It is common for a writer to give greater detail to events in which he has been involved compared with those he has learned of second hand. It is noticeable that the author deals at great length with the ‘we’ events at Philippi, yet provides a short summary of the ‘they’ passages (Acts: 16: 4-8; 18: 18-23).

…All these (and more) observations point to Acts, and therefore also Luke’s Gospel, as being written some time before the death of Peter in 65 AD. Jerome stated that ‘Acts’ was completed in the fourth year of Nero which would be in 64 AD.

Most modern scholars will point to the many contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters (An example can be seen by comparing Acts’ accounts of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul’s own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).) He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul’s on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul’s views accurately. Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110. The overshadowing of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. There’s a good deal of evidence that that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Au contraire.

They – the Apostles – themselves (referring to Matthew and John)

referring to Luke and Mark

I think that if the Apostles were meant, they would have said “The Apostles.” Apostolic men can mean anyone who follows the Christian tradition.

Thank you,
Gary