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

[Erich]

The Church has not and probably will not say anything on the authorship of the scriptures.

Except for the fact that, as noted earlier in this thread, in Dei Verbum – a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council – the Church insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.

 

[catholictiger]

Except for the fact that, as noted earlier in this thread, in Dei Verbum – a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council – the Church insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.

yes I know that. It says that it is apostolic origin.

1. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.
   The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. Origin not specifically writtenFor 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. nothing here states that ALL of these gospels are written by them, nor does it mention sources such as Q, or what comes first. We must be careful about making broad universal statements, such as Matthew wrote every single word of the Gospel of Matthew. We can’t know that for certain. It is possible to believe that Matthews disciples (also disciples of Christ of course) finished or adjusted parts of the original manuscripts of the scriptures, all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
2. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that 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 until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.4 For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2–4).19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that 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 until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.4 For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2–4).
3. Besides the four Gospels, the canon of the New Testament also contains the epistles of St. Paul and other apostolic writings, composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which, according to the wise plan of God, those matters which concern Christ the Lord are confirmed, His true teaching is more and more fully stated, the saving power of the divine work of Christ is preached, the story is told of the beginnings of the Church and its marvelous growth, and its glorious fulfillment is foretold.
   For the Lord Jesus was with His apostles as He had promised (see Matt. 28:20) and sent them the advocate Spirit who would lead them into the fullness of truth (see John 16:13).

The Church always speaks in a way that binds us to something while keeping the door open to development. Scholarly work can’t be ignored because the Church said it is this way, or the fathers said it is this way. Modern Scholars are smart they don’t always see eye to eye with the Church but we should pay attention to what they say.

I would suggest this. When reading modern scholars of scripture, read it with the eyes of the Church. We should use the historical critical method even with all of it flaws.

 

[catholictiger]

Please note: I almost always hold to the traditional answer of the Church. BUT, If someone in this thread or others says Catholics are bound to something they are in fact not bound to I will try to show that.

I believe Mat Mark L and J wrote the majority of the Gospels. with some help from their followers.

 

[ChaosGamma]

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.
Thank you,
Gary

Really?

They did not know who built the pyramids and probably would have had no means of gaining that information, therefore we should not trust them about who wrote the Gospels.

They did not know about the Big Bang and would have had no means of knowing about it, therefore we should not trust them about who wrote the Gospels.

They did not know of the existence of neanderthals and would have had no means of knowing about the existence of such, therefore we should not trust them about who wrote the Gospels.

Really?

So basically what you’re saying is that because the early Church Fathers did not have the advantages of modern science to be able to tell them about ancient history and the universe, they are unreliable as to being able to recount oral tradition about the authors of the Gospels which some of them could have received within a generation of the deaths of the Apostles. Did I get that right?

(As an aside, while I can’t quote off the top of my head, I’m pretty sure there were at least some early Church Fathers as well as Jewish writers who did not believe that the 6 day creation account was supposed to be taken literally. Still don’t know how they were supposed to know that the universe is a couple billion years old.)

 

[po18guy]

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.

“If”

I believe that the entire theory of the Apostles copying and pasting their own Gospels from a single “source” is a ludicrous, modernist canard. For three years, the Gospel was drilled into their heads. The oral preaching never stopped, once it began. They were among the seventy-two who were sent to preach. They spoke via the Holy Spirit on the Pentecost and ever after. To assert that the Apostles could not remember a cohesive story is to deny Christ’s promise of the Spirit, as well as the Spirit’s power.

To deny the supernatural element of the Gospel is a hallmark of modernism.

 

[catholictiger]

“If”

I believe that the entire theory of the Apostles copying and pasting their own Gospels from a single “source” is a ludicrous, modernist canard. For three years, the Gospel was drilled into their heads. The oral preaching never stopped, once it began. They were among the seventy-two who were sent to preach. They spoke via the Holy Spirit on the Pentecost and ever after. To assert that the Apostles could not remember a cohesive story is to deny Christ’s promise of the Spirit, as well as the Spirit’s power.

To deny the supernatural element of the Gospel is a hallmark of modernism.

could they have worked together to reproduce the stories? It would be like Matthew going to mark and saying, I don’t remember what Christ said at this event. They didn’t copy and paste off each other but the one source could have been collaborating together.

 

[Thorns]

Why is there so much confusion about who wrote the Gospels?

I figure, if the Church really does have Tradition and the Gospels were passed along from the beginning, wouldn’t we know EXACTLY who wrote the Gospels and in what year they were written? But instead, we all find ourselves unsure and speculating. Why?

 

[po18guy]

Why is there so much confusion about who wrote the Gospels?

I figure, if the Church really does have Tradition and the Gospels were passed along from the beginning, wouldn’t we know EXACTLY who wrote the Gospels and in what year they were written? But instead, we all find ourselves unsure and speculating. Why?

Our resistance to the evil one waxes and wanes.

blog.adw.org/2013/07/four-common-tactics-of-the-devil/

 

[po18guy]

could they have worked together to reproduce the stories? It would be like Matthew going to mark and saying, I don’t remember what Christ said at this event. They didn’t copy and paste off each other but the one source could have been collaborating together.

We have all heard the saying “The Lord works in mysterious ways” He has provided much mystery in His covenants, so that we must rely on our faith. No matter the mechanism He used, His words reached us and remain with us.

 

[Thorns]

Our resistance to the evil one waxes and wanes.

blog.adw.org/2013/07/four-common-tactics-of-the-devil/

We can’t always use the devil as a scapegoat in place of giving an answer.

That would be like a Fundamentalist when confronted with the question as to “Where did million year old dinosaur bones come from if the world is only 6000 years old?” And his response is simply, “Satan put the fossils in the earth to distract us all from the truth.” Its a way of avoiding the question.

 

[Erich]

nor does it mention sources such as Q

From The Authors of the Gospels:

There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed. If Q had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of The Our Father and The Beatitudes to Q. Mark did not bother to record them. If Q had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory … accept conjectures and theories about Q, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality Q was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

I will of course grant that Dei Verbum does not state in so many words, “Matthew’s gospel was written first” … but reason (not faith) tells me that Christianity would not have spread as quickly as it did, had the first gospels to be written and published not been a first-hand account (Matthew) or authorized by a first-hand witness (Mark was a companion of Peter).

Before the four gospels were bound together, they were listed and used in a variety of orders. A popular sequence was Matthew-Luke-Mark and John. We have records that theologians quoted the Scriptures in this sequence, and liturgical readings often followed this pattern. St. Jerome in his book, ‘Illustrious Men’, adhered to the same order. St Clement of Alexandria, successor to the bishopric of Mark, specifically stated that Matthew and Luke wrote first, so emphasising that Luke wrote before Mark.

St. Augustine explained that while the ‘received’ order was Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, the order of dignity was, Matthew-John-Mark-Luke. In his fourth book, he says that Mark developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke, so confirming that Luke wrote before Mark.

could they have worked together to reproduce the stories? It would be like Matthew going to mark and saying, I don’t remember what Christ said at this event. They didn’t copy and paste off each other but the one source could have been collaborating together.

According to most (if not all ) versions of the Markan priority theory, Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels were written independently of each other, in (and for) separate communities that were out of touch with one another. Because of the literary agreement that can often be found between Matthew and Luke – and their both being different from Mark – it was hypothesized that there was a source/document that was known/used by both Matthew and Luke when they composed their Gospels. This, by itself, is not a problem for theorizing Markan priority (I’ll even grant that such a source/document could account for Matthew and Luke choosing the exact same words as each other instead of the words Mark chose which mean the same thing). The problem really becomes apparent only after looking at all the dualities, plus the pattern of choosing exactly the same healing stories/commandments/etc., plus things like the following:

When the three Gospels are placed side by side, we can see where borrowing has taken place. … According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until, when Luke ceases, Matthew takes over, and this continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely.

With all these (dozens, even hundreds) of examples of Matthew and Luke seemingly having to coordinate their work very closely, what need is there for Q? And if there is no real need for Q, then some other theory is needed to account for the literary agreement between Matthew and Luke – and their difference from Mark – in order to support Markan priority.

Also consider:

Clement of Alexandra recorded that: “And when Peter got to know about it [Marks Gospel] he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or promote it”. This raises interesting questions. If Marks Gospel was the first gospel to be written, and therefore the flagship of the Christians, why was Peter so indifferent regarding its promotion? On the other hand, if we accept that two well prepared and constructed Gospels already existed, and Peter had merely preached a series of sermons based on them, Peter’s attitude is easy to understand.

The Clementine tradition of Matthew - Luke - Mark - John takes a much more holistic approach to New Testament dating than the narrow “literary analysis only” world that many Markan priorists seem to live in.

 

[po18guy]

Our resistance…

i.e. our fault.

… to the evil one waxes and wanes.

i.e. his influence.

Is this any clearer?

 

[catholictiger]

From The Authors of the Gospels:

I will of course grant that Dei Verbum does not state in so many words, “Matthew’s gospel was written first” … but reason (not faith) tells me that Christianity would not have spread as quickly as it did, had the first gospels to be written and published not been a first-hand account (Matthew) or authorized by a first-hand witness (Mark was a companion of Peter).

Before the four gospels were bound together, they were listed and used in a variety of orders. A popular sequence was Matthew-Luke-Mark and John. We have records that theologians quoted the Scriptures in this sequence, and liturgical readings often followed this pattern. St. Jerome in his book, ‘Illustrious Men’, adhered to the same order. St Clement of Alexandria, successor to the bishopric of Mark, specifically stated that Matthew and Luke wrote first, so emphasising that Luke wrote before Mark.

St. Augustine explained that while the ‘received’ order was Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, the order of dignity was, Matthew-John-Mark-Luke. In his fourth book, he says that Mark developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke, so confirming that Luke wrote before Mark.

According to most (if not all ) versions of the Markan priority theory, Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels were written independently of each other, in (and for) separate communities that were out of touch with one another. Because of the literary agreement that can often be found between Matthew and Luke – and their both being different from Mark – it was hypothesized that there was a source/document that was known/used by both Matthew and Luke when they composed their Gospels. This, by itself, is not a problem for theorizing Markan priority (I’ll even grant that such a source/document could account for Matthew and Luke choosing the exact same words as each other instead of the words Mark chose which mean the same thing). The problem really becomes apparent only after looking at all the dualities, plus the pattern of choosing exactly the same healing stories/commandments/etc., plus things like the following:
With all these (dozens, even hundreds) of examples of Matthew and Luke seemingly having to coordinate their work very closely, what need is there for Q? And if there is no real need for Q, then some other theory is needed to account for the literary agreement between Matthew and Luke – and their difference from Mark – in order to support Markan priority.

Also consider:The Clementine tradition of Matthew - Luke - Mark - John takes a much more holistic approach to New Testament dating than the narrow “literary analysis only” world that many Markan priorists seem to live in.

I agree with most of this stuff, and I don’t want to take away from the topic of the thread.

The thread is not about what is most reasonable rather it has to do with is a certain opinion of the authorship of scriptures morally binding. Some are, others aren’t. I have yet to see a document that states; that Catholics must believe Matthew wrote before Mark.

 

[catholictiger]

We have all heard the saying “The Lord works in mysterious ways” He has provided much mystery in His covenants, so that we must rely on our faith. No matter the mechanism He used, His words reached us and remain with us.

I agree

Just to make it clear, the Church has nothing to say officially about the Q source theory, the 3 source theory of the Pentateuch. Theological ink has been spilt on this topic ad nausea but the Church has not said any dogmatic statements on certain modern theories of biblical authorship. The Church does set guidelines to follow, some more specific than others. They are very specific about the Gospels saying that the Gospels have apostolic origins and it was written before the destruction of the temple.

 

[po18guy]

I agree

Just to make it clear, the Church has nothing to say officially about the Q source theory, the 3 source theory of the Pentateuch. Theological ink has been spilt on this topic ad nausea but the Church has not said any dogmatic statements on certain modern theories of biblical authorship. The Church does set guidelines to follow, some more specific than others. They are very specific about the Gospels saying that the Gospels have apostolic origins and it was written before the destruction of the temple.

The Q theory tends to deconstruct, denigrate or disregard the tradition relating to the authorship. To what practical purpose? Controversy? Doubt? Simple argumentation?

Yet, its proponents offer no evidence as to when the required cabal met in secrecy and drew lots to determine which Gospel was first, and who wrote it. Is there not a whiff of conspiracy theory in their assertions?

 

[catholictiger]

The Q theory tends to deconstruct, denigrate or disregard the tradition relating to the authorship. To what practical purpose? Controversy? Doubt? Simple argumentation?

Yet, its proponents offer no evidence as to when the required cabal met in secrecy and drew lots to determine which Gospel was first, and who wrote it. Is there not a whiff of conspiracy theory in their assertions?

Please note: I think the Q theory is wrong and doesn’t work. But what I’m saying is that Catholics are not required to reject it.

 

[Abu]

What Does The Church Really Say About The Bible, by Edith Myers, The Wanderer Press, 1979
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3752

“…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,” and emphatically stated:

**“4) On the Author and the Historical Truth of the Fourth Gospel, 1907. **
There is sufficient evidence that John the Apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel, the Commission stated, to uphold this opinion against adverse critics. We may not say that the discourses of Our Lord that are reported therein are not really the words of Jesus but theological compositions of the authors.”

“8) On the Author, Date of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1911.
Matthew, the Commission said, is in truth the author of the Gospel published under his name. The Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem. We cannot accept the idea that the book was merely a collection of sayings compiled by an anonymous author. While the book was first written in Hebrew, the Greek is regarded as canonical, and is to be regarded as historically true, including the infancy narratives, and passages relating to the primacy of Peter (16:17-19) and to the Apostles’ profession of faith in the divinity of Christ (14:33).”

**‘9) On the Author, Time of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospels According to St. Mark and St. Luke, 1912. **
The Commission upheld the authorship of these books by Mark and Luke, their historicity, and their having been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. It cannot prudently be called into question, the Commission said, that Mark wrote according to the preaching of Peter, or that Luke followed the preaching of Paul. Both of them told what they had learned from “eminently trustworthy witnesses.”

Discussion, ignoring, or against this, is puerile.

 

[po18guy]

Please note: I think the Q theory is wrong and doesn’t work. But what I’m saying is that Catholics are not required to reject it.

Like evolution - we can believe if God caused and directed it. Yet, the Q theory very suddenly popped up very late in the game. Not a peep beforehand. Methinks there is a touch of arrogance amongst modern theologians.

 

[TMC]

It is absolutely clear that Catholics are not required to believe that the Gospels were written by the “traditional” authors. If you have any doubts as to that, just check the bishops’ website. For example, as to Matthew, the USCCB says directly that there are many different theories on authorship, and that none “can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

Similar statements are made about the other Gospels, just check the introduction to each. Maybe there are some posters here who will claim to understand Catholic teaching better than the bishops, but, for me, this confirms that Catholics are not required to believe in traditional authorship.

 

[po18guy]

It is absolutely clear that Catholics are not required to believe that the Gospels were written by the “traditional” authors. If you have any doubts as to that, just check the bishops’ website. For example, as to Matthew, the USCCB says directly that there are many different theories on authorship, and that none “can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

Similar statements are made about the other Gospels, just check the introduction to each. Maybe there are some posters here who will claim to understand Catholic teaching better than the bishops, but, for me, this confirms that Catholics are not required to believe in traditional authorship.

It is not de fide, if that is what you mean. Never has been.