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

[Erich]

Do you agree that the Church does not mandate that Catholics believe that the Gospels were written by the traditional authors?

I do not agree. From Why worry? - It doesn’t matter who wrote first

Some people have said they do not understand why time is spent arguing about who wrote the first Gospel. They say: “It doesn’t matter”. My reply is: “Yes” and “no”.

                        **Prayer:**  When using the                             Gospels to inspire prayer and meditation, it doesn’t always matter who wrote first.   But the Gospels                             are also used for Evangelisation and teaching.

                        **Evangelisation: ** An enquirer,                             wanting to know whether Christianity is true, will ask important questions about the gospels. Are their accounts                             of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, historically reliable? Did Christ teach and preach the wise                             and beautiful thoughts recorded in the gospels? Did he work miracles and rise from the dead, etc?

                        In reply, Christians say two of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Christ’s                             life (The Apostles, Matthew and John), and the gospel of Luke was written by Paul’s secretary. The content of the                             other gospel came from the eyewitness Peter and was written down by Mark, his secretary. All the ancient historians                             agreed that Matthew wrote first and John last, but they varied in the order of the writing and publishing of the                             other two.

                        Some non-believers have asserted that as Mark’s Greek is grammatically poor, he                             must have written first.  They say this shows the ancient historians were all in error because they record                             that Matthew wrote first. They claim Mark didn’t record Peter’s words but copied stories from an unknown document                             they call ‘Q’, which was then lost. In similar ways these non-believers assert that John’s gospel was not written                             by an eyewitness companion of Christ.

                        If an enquirer accepts that the records of all the ancient historians are historically                             unreliable, he/she is not likely to accept Christianity as true. This anti-Christian idea, known as: ‘The Markan                             priority theory’ has spread amongst some Christians and undermined their teachings and beliefs.

                        This is why we should worry about the spread of the theory.

Note 1. Meditating on Christ’s words and actions within the situation in which he spoke and acted, often enhances the fruits of a meditation.

                        Note 2.  Some Catholics say it is not necessary to refute the Markan priority theory because                             the Church tells us that the Gospels are historical.  This may be sufficient for those already Catholic. But                             it is very necessary when we are using the Gospels to show that                             Christ founded the Church.

 

[Abu]

TMC #99
You seem to be arguing that the bishops are allowing their own organization, the USCCB, to put out teaching in a very important area that is contrary to the Church.

Fancy TMC even attempting to claim that the U.S., or any other bishops, even as a group, can trump the Magisterium! What a colossal error! Including the false idea of a sea-change in Catholic teaching on the Gospel authors! That “this document …this came out directly before Vatican II and should give you a detailed position of the Churches view of the Authors of the Gospels” – shows how little attention he pays to the facts.

No wonder that Bl John Paul II had to reaffirm that there has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” at his meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987, before Donum Veritatis (CDF) in 1990. “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.”

In fact, the document has been pilloried by some!
‘A surprising statement has been recently made that the 1964 Instruction, combined with the Council’s Constitution on Divine Revelation, “reversed and superseded all the earlier decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,” this assertion being attributed to the Commission’s secretary. 14 This statement seems quite evidently based on misinformation; for the Commission’s secretary at the time, Fr. Benjamin Wambacq, made no statement concerning earlier decrees, but merely said the Instruction was approved by Pope Paul, who had ordered its publication. As we have noted, the Instruction itself counsels faithful compliance “with the norms laid down by the Pontifical Biblical Commission” 15; and the Constitution on Divine Revelation, far from regarding the Commission’s early decrees as invalid, refers to one of them in its footnotes!

‘Exegetes who have enthusiastically espoused form criticism would like the 1964 Instruction to say some things that it does not say: in particular, they would like it to defend their thesis that the Gospels were not written by the men to whom they are attributed, but by others, and that they reflect “the memory of the early Christian community.” This is not, however, what the Instruction says or implies. It says, on the contrary, that the idea of the “creative power of the community” is one of those facets of form criticism that is not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but “devoid of scientific basis and alien to the correct principles of historical method.” ’ [My bold].
Notes:
14 Archbishop John F. Whealon, “The Magisterium: Biblical and Pastoral Aspects,” L’Osservatore Romano. April 13th, 1978, p. 8. Rumors that the decisions of the Biblical Commission have been revoked have apparently arisen from time to time. Msgr. Steinmueller says, in the 1962 revision of his three-volume work, A Companion to Scripture Studies, that some scholars falsely concluded that the decisions were revoked, on the basis of two articles, one by the secretary and other by the undersecretary of the Commission (New York, Joseph F. Wagner, A Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol. I, 1962), pp. 300-01, footnote; and this statement also appears in the 1949 edition.

15 In an article titled “The Study of Sacred Scripture,” Cardinal Taguchi of Japan clearly regards the decisions of the Biblical Commission as binding. This article was first published by The Seido Foundation in Japan; was then translated and published in L’Osservatore Romano, May 15th, 1975; and is reprinted, with Cardinal Taguchi’s approval, in Msgr. Steinmueller’s latest book, *The Sword of the Spirit *(Waco, Texas: Stella Maris Books, 1978) in an appendix.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3752

 

[TMC]

Fancy TMC even attempting to claim that the U.S., or any other bishops, even as a group, can trump the Magisterium! What a colossal error! Including the false idea of a sea-change in Catholic teaching on the Gospel authors! That “this document …this came out directly before Vatican II and should give you a detailed position of the Churches view of the Authors of the Gospels” – shows how little attention he pays to the facts.

But that is not what is happening here. I am not claiming that the bishops are trumping the Magisterium. I am claiming that the bishops understand Catholic teaching, and that the teaching they are putting out is consistent with the Magisterium. To be direct, what is happening here is that you and a few others are claiming that you understand the “true” teaching of the Church, but that the USCCB, the Vatican, and the bishops do not. Is that not what you are saying? If not, what are you saying, and how do you explain that your position is in direct conflict with what is being put out by the bishops, the USCCB and the Vatican?

 

[Bradthecatholic]

WOW! You guys have given me a lot of responses. Thanks!

 

[Abu]

TMC #102
You seem to be arguing that the bishops are allowing their own organization, the USCCB, to put out teaching in a very important area that is contrary to the Church….how do you explain that your position is in direct conflict with what is being put out by the bishops, the USCCB and the Vatican?

You have been quite unable to give your outrageous construction “It is absolutely clear that Catholics are not required to believe that the Gospels were written by the ‘traditional’ authors” (post #78), any confirmation from the Magisterium. The reference to “the Vatican” as supporting your bizarre concoction is totally without confirmation.

BTW, “Edith Myers in her What Does the Church Really Say about the Bible, which first appeared in serial articles in The Wanderer, has performed a gigantic task.
She has given us not her personal speculations or opinions, but the authentic teachings of the Church’s Magisterium over the past century.”
Msgr. John E. Steinmueller
(Consultor of the First Pontifical Biblical Commission)
Bay Hills, Huntington, New York (1979)

**REDISCOVERING THE DECREES OF THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION
by Sean Kopczynski **
Editor’s Note. The following article represents the typical situation of a Catholic student attending classes in a graduate school of theology and finding himself being presented with novel and even shocking ideas of biblical interpretation taken from that confused and often misleading area of thought known as Catholic biblical scholarship. Usually the student does not have the time or the ability to search into the background of these disconcerting affirmations to see where they came from and to test the solidity of their foundation. Father Sean Kopczynski, a missionary of the Congregation of the Fathers of Mercy ordained a priest on June 10, 2000, had been a student occasionally in this situation. In the instance discussed below he did take the time to study into a question regarding the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. How his research turned out is the subject of the following article. He now preaches parish missions, novenas, and retreats.]

“Pope St. Pius X also mentions that the decrees of the PBC are “Decrees which appertain to doctrine”…

‘Because the authority of the original PBC has been ignored, it should be noted that “Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church. This extension of the Magisterium was later removed after the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars …"5 In other words, Pope St. Pius X made the Commission an organ and that organ taught us, publishing its decrees in the A.A.S. **Its promulgated decrees were and remain to this day ordinary Magisterial teaching. But after Vatican II the PBC no longer enjoyed this authority. **’
Note
5. Preface to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993.
[LT94 - Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission]](LT94 - Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission]) [My emphasis].

That is why there is so much confusion shown by TMC with some scholars voicing their own prejudiced opinions, some with little understanding of, or regard for, the Church’s teaching on Sacred Scripture.

 

[po18guy]

Setting aside the snark, are you willing to address the substance of my point? Do you agree that the Church does not mandate that Catholics believe that the Gospels were written by the traditional authors? If not, are you saying that the bishops are wrong?

Straw man argument. Are you claiming that tradition is wrong and someone else wrote the Gospels? For now, let’s leave the Bishops out of this.

There is a constant drumbeat regarding how horribly confining dogma is. In this case, of course the Church has not declared the authorship to be dogma. But, those names and traditions exist, side-by-side, in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Are you claiming that both Churches got the tradition wrong? Excuse me, but that seems highly unlikely.

It is simply that to argue error in tradition would require the Church to be wrong in the beginning, wrong for almost 2,000 years, and wrong now. Does it not implicitly assert that the traditional authorship was either either fabricated, a bad guess or part of some conspiracy? What is to be gained by fabricating an erroneous tradition?

I fail to see how the tax status of the bishops’ organization is relevant.

First, it has lost cred in recent years. Second, the USCCB is not 100% Bishops. It also contains the progressive activists who directed funds to agencies which openly oppose Church teaching. I do not think that any Bishops consciously did that, but lay activists within the organization are certainly capable of such a violation of trust. Let’s say that it was simple negligence at the staff level.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did in fact write the gospels. The main reason for believing this is so is because if they didn’t write these gospels–early members of the Church would not have held these scriptures in esteem–they wouldn’t have used them at Mass.

But not only were the members of the early church skeptical and discerning when it came to the early scriptures–non believers would have ridiculed the gospels if they didn’t come from matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

A zillion gospels were written–only these four remained. Why? Because they had Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as their authors.

I wouldn’t presume to say what American Catholic bishops would say as to whether the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s decisions should be believed with an assent of faith or not–I do believe that all American Catholic bishops would support the Catholic Church’s teachings over the ages.

One thing I can tell you for sure though–the gospels are the word of God. Jesus is the Word of God–He established the Catholic Church–and that Church will prevail against the gates of Hell.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John–pray for us!

 

[TMC]

Straw man argument. Are you claiming that tradition is wrong and someone else wrote the Gospels? For now, let’s leave the Bishops out of this.

This is not a straw man. I am not saying that tradition is wrong, I am saying that you misunderstand tradition, but the bishops do understand tradition. How do we leave what the bishops teach out of a discussion of what the Church teaches?

The bishops clearly understand that there is room within Catholic teaching for Catholics to either accept traditional authorship, or accept other theories of authorship. That is what they have approved to be taught, and what is published on both the USCCB and Vatican websites. For example, this quote comes directly from the Vatican website:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see ⇒ Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV9.HTM

There is a constant drumbeat regarding how horribly confining dogma is. In this case, of course the Church has not declared the authorship to be dogma. But, those names and traditions exist, side-by-side, in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Are you claiming that both Churches got the tradition wrong? Excuse me, but that seems highly unlikely.

I have not said a single word about whether dogma is confining or not, nor have I said that the Church got anything wrong. Frankly what is highly unlikely here is that you understand what the Church teaches, but the bishops do not.

It is simply that to argue error in tradition would require the Church to be wrong in the beginning, wrong for almost 2,000 years, and wrong now. Does it not implicitly assert that the traditional authorship was either either fabricated, a bad guess or part of some conspiracy? What is to be gained by fabricating an erroneous tradition?

First, it has lost cred in recent years. Second, the USCCB is not 100% Bishops. It also contains the progressive activists who directed funds to agencies which openly oppose Church teaching. I do not think that any Bishops consciously did that, but lay activists within the organization are certainly capable of such a violation of trust. Let’s say that it was simple negligence at the staff level.

Seriously, you maintain that the bishops, the USCCB and the Vatican have approved and widely disseminated heresy (and have been doing so for many years), and you chalk that up to staff negligence? So we are left with either believing that the bishops completely misunderstand Church teaching on Scripture or believing that a couple of posters on an internet forum have an overly restricted view of what the Church allows. I think that is a pretty easy choice.

 

[catholictiger]

This is not a straw man. I am not saying that tradition is wrong, I am saying that you misunderstand tradition, but the bishops do understand tradition. How do we leave what the bishops teach out of a discussion of what the Church teaches?

The bishops clearly understand that there is room within Catholic teaching for Catholics to either accept traditional authorship, or accept other theories of authorship. That is what they have approved to be taught, and what is published on both the USCCB and Vatican websites. For example, this quote comes directly from the Vatican website:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV9.HTM

I have not said a single word about whether dogma is confining or not, nor have I said that the Church got anything wrong. Frankly what is highly unlikely here is that you understand what the Church teaches, but the bishops do not.

Seriously, you maintain that the bishops, the USCCB and the Vatican have approved and widely disseminated heresy (and have been doing so for many years), and you chalk that up to staff negligence? So we are left with either believing that the bishops completely misunderstand Church teaching on Scripture or believing that a couple of posters on an internet forum have an overly restricted view of what the Church allows. I think that is a pretty easy choice.

piercedhearts.org/scriptures/historical_truth_gospels_pont_biblical_com.htm

please read the document in the following link.

 

[juliamajor]

There is really no solid extra-biblical evidence that “proves” without a shadow of a doubt who exactly wrote the Gospels. The ECF and tradition have some to say about it.
From Catholic-resources.org

Ten Stages of NT Formation and Transmission
The Historical Jesus - words are spoken and deeds are performed by Jesus himself during his lifetime on earth.
Oral Tradition - traditions and beliefs about Jesus are developed and passed on by early Christian communities.
Written Sources - some of the miracles and/or sayings of Jesus are compiled and recorded in early written documents.
Written Texts - individual letters, full Gospels, etc., are written with particular messages for particular situations.
Distribution - some writings are copied and shared with other Christian communities throughout the Mediterranean.
Collection - certain Christians begin collecting the letters of Paul and gathering together several different Gospels.
Canonization - four Gospels, several collections of letters, and a few other texts are accepted as authoritative scriptures.
Translation - biblical texts are translated into ever more ancient and modern languages: Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, etc.
Interpretation - the meaning of the scriptures is investigated on various levels: literal, spiritual, historical, social, etc.
Application - communities and individuals use the NT for practical purposes: liturgical, moral, sacramental, theological, etc.

Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):
Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
Four-Fold Role of the Evangelists as Authors (what they contributed, even if “God is the Author” of all scripture):
Compare this list with the principles mentioned in the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1964 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, par. IX.

Selectors - from among the many things Jesus said and did, they chose which stories they wanted to include and which to omit.
Arrangers - they organized the materials in a particular sequence, not necessarily chronologically but often in thematic blocks.
Shapers - they adapted and edited the individual stories from their sources so as to emphasize the themes they wanted to stress.
Proclaimers - they were not objective historians, but preached the “good news” about Jesus in ways appropriate to their audiences.

 

[TMC]

piercedhearts.org/scriptures/historical_truth_gospels_pont_biblical_com.htm

please read the document in the following link.

I have. This document is entirely consistent with what the bishops have published and with what I have been saying - there is room in Catholic thought for various theories on the identity of the authors of the Gospels. Or was that your point?

 

[po18guy]

This is not a straw man. I am not saying that tradition is wrong, I am saying that you misunderstand tradition, but the bishops do understand tradition. How do we leave what the bishops teach out of a discussion of what the Church teaches?
The bishops clearly understand that there is room within Catholic teaching for Catholics to either accept traditional authorship, or accept other theories of authorship. That is what they have approved to be taught, and what is published on both the USCCB and Vatican websites. For example, this quote comes directly from the Vatican website:vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV9.HTMI have not said a single word about whether dogma is confining or not, nor have I said that the Church got anything wrong. Frankly what is highly unlikely here is that you understand what the Church teaches, but the bishops do not. Seriously, you maintain that the bishops, the USCCB and the Vatican have approved and widely disseminated heresy (and have been doing so for many years), and you chalk that up to staff negligence? So we are left with either believing that the bishops completely misunderstand Church teaching on Scripture or believing that a couple of posters on an internet forum have an overly restricted view of what the Church allows. I think that is a pretty easy choice.

Speaking of easy choices, are you a progressive?

1. Yes
2. No

 

[TMC]

Speaking of easy choices, are you a progressive?

1. Yes
2. No

I have no idea how to define the term, and I’m not a fan of those kind of labels. But I want to be forthcoming and not duck the substance of the question. I disagree with the Church’s teaching in a number of areas, which may lead some Catholics to call me “progressive.” Most of those areas of disagreement involve gender or sexuality issues. What I don’t do is portray my own views as the Church’s. I believe it important to be intellectually and morally honest in that regard.

Maybe its because I am honest about my own divergence with the Church in certain areas, that I have little patience for those that attempt to put forth their own personal views as those of the Church.

In that vein, I would say that my views on Scripture are mainstream and generally in accord with the Church’s teachings. For the record, I think that Luke was probably written by a doctor named Luke and that Mark was probably written by a disciple of Peter’s named Mark. But the Church does not mandate that belief. I don’t think John was written by the apostle John, although it likely has a connection to him and his teaching; and I feel similarly about Matthew. The Church does not condemn those beliefs. That is about as forthcoming as I can be about my views on the relevant topics.

 

[po18guy]

I have no idea how to define the term, and I’m not a fan of those kind of labels. But I want to be forthcoming and not duck the substance of the question. I disagree with the Church’s teaching in a number of areas, which may lead some Catholics to call me “progressive.” Most of those areas of disagreement involve gender or sexuality issues. What I don’t do is portray my own views as the Church’s. I believe it important to be intellectually and morally honest in that regard.

Maybe its because I am honest about my own divergence with the Church in certain areas, that I have little patience for those that attempt to put forth their own personal views as those of the Church.

In that vein, I would say that my views on Scripture are mainstream and generally in accord with the Church’s teachings. For the record, I think that Luke was probably written by a doctor named Luke and that Mark was probably written by a disciple of Peter’s named Mark. But the Church does not mandate that belief. I don’t think John was written by the apostle John, although it likely has a connection to him and his teaching; and I feel similarly about Matthew. The Church does not condemn those beliefs. That is about as forthcoming as I can be about my views on the relevant topics.

I am being 100% serious here: Since you cannot grant intellectual assent to Catholic teaching, have you investigated other communions?

 

[TMC]

I am being 100% serious here: Since you cannot grant intellectual assent to Catholic teaching, have you investigated other communions?

Yes. Since you inquire sincerely, I will respond in kind. I am in the midst of a serious and lifelong search. I am humble enough to not expect to find, but hopeful enough to keep up the work. I have not given up on the Church, but I remain in the process of discernment.

 

[po18guy]

Yes. Since you inquire sincerely, I will respond in kind. I am in the midst of a serious and lifelong search. I am humble enough to not expect to find, but hopeful enough to keep up the work. I have not given up on the Church, but I remain in the process of discernment.

That is great news! Forgive me, but I should have first suggested that you spend time before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Done with a heart that is open to the Holy Spirit, it is a faith-changer, a life-changer. I routinely suggest this to all who are discerning, or in a crisis of faith. Just be as patient with the Lord as He has been with you. As to those teachings that are most difficult, ask a priest to lunch or dinner and allow him to explain. Catholic teaching is always based on our human dignity, and our being made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Abu]

TMC #112
I disagree with the Church’s teaching in a number of areas,….Most of those areas of disagreement involve gender or sexuality issues.

As all real Catholics know, any Catholic failing to assent to the Church’s teaching is a dissenter, so it is not surprising that such dissent should extend to whatever one chooses, as in this case, but the dissent had already been identified.

I think that Luke was probably written by a doctor named Luke and that Mark was probably written by a disciple of Peter’s named Mark. But the Church does not mandate that belief. I don’t think John was written by the apostle John, although it likely has a connection to him and his teaching; and I feel similarly about Matthew. The Church does not condemn those beliefs.

As real Catholics know, the Church is clear on the authenticity of the authors as shown clearly in this case. The reliance on some bishops is misplaced, as the Magisterium has authenticated the authorship as shown plainly.

The reference to an introduction to a Catholic Bible which infers that the Magisterium is wrong on Gospel authorship, has no substance except to highlight the error, as it is not part of the Scripture itself, as well as not part of the Magisterium.

Another example of a Vatican translation text which is faulty is that of Dei Verbum which reads on the Vatican website:
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

This is corrected in the translation in CCC #107:
“Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that [the] truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.”

What’s the significance of the correct translation? Msgr George A Kelly explains in The New Biblical Theorists – Raymond E Brown and Beyond: “The Council chose not to say that only the Bible’s ‘spiritual truth’ or its ‘religious truth’ is free from error. The actual sentence of *Dei Verbum *says that every assertion of the sacred writers – whether it be religious or moral or scientific or historical – is free from error, because God wanted these writers to convey to us unalloyed truth for the sake of our salvation. The Council makes no distinction between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ truths to be covered by inerrancy, nor is inerrancy to be restricted to ‘essential religious affirmations’ as Brown avers.” (p 157).
See: rtforum.org/lt/lt61.html

Fr William G Most presented the reality against TMC in Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?, identifying that “at present the number of attacks on the Two Source Theory is multiplying11.”
Note:
11 Cf. W.R. Farmer,* The Synoptic Problem*, Dillsboro, NC, 1976; Bernard Orchard, Matthew Luke and Mark, Manchester, 1977; E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge, 1969; T.R. Rosche, “The Words of Jesus and the Future of the ‘Q’ Hypothesis” in JBL 79 (1960) 210-20; Sanders, “The Argument from Order and Relationship between Matthew and Luke” in NTS 15 (1968-69) 249-61; O.L. Cope,* Matthew, A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven* in CBQ Monograph Series 5, 1976, esp. p. 12: John M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, Cambridge, 1978; Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, tr. D.L. Niewyk, Macon and Edinburgh, 1980.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=221

 

[Erich]

I don’t think John was written by the apostle John, although it likely has a connection to him and his teaching

The records of the historians are consistent with one another.

According to the Old Latin Prologue to John, Bishop Papias of Hierapollis (60-138) related that he had written the Gospel as John had dictated it to him. This claim may have been concerning the last chapter only. Papias said John had composed it at the request of the bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other heretics, especially the Ebionites. Papias added that John knew the other three gospels and had written to supplement them.

Irenaeus (120-180) wrote: ‘Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia’. [Present day Turkey]

A long fragment of the Muratorian Canon was discovered in 1740 by Cardinal Muratori in the Ambrosian library at Milan. Internal evidence shows it was composed between 141- 155 AD. Some attribute its authorship to Hippolytus. The Latin text, confirmed by other finds, appears to have been translated from the Greek.

It explains that John wrote: at the insistence of his fellow-disciples and bishops. John agreed and asked them “to fast with him for three days, and what shall have been revealed to each let us, relate to one another”. That same night it was revealed to the Andrew, one of the Apostles, that whatever came to the minds of them all, John, in his own name, should write it all down.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) mentioned that John wrote the forth Gospel after being urged by his friends.

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue of John: says the bishops of Asia [present day Turkey] asked the Apostle John to answer Cerinthus and other heretics, and this was the reason why John wrote his gospel.

At one time it was accepted that John wrote his gospel about 96AD. But recently, Tresmontant, Thied, Orchard and Robinson separately concluded that the first twenty chapters were written prior to 70AD with chapter 21 added about 95AD.

 

[Erich]

and I feel similarly about Matthew.

From this link:

Eusebius quoted Papias as stating that Mark was very accurate when recording the speech of Peter, but: “Matthew collected/composed the oracles [logia or sayings] in the Hebrew language/style; but each recorded them as he was able.”

Modern research shows that at that time Greek shorthand was in use, but the Jews had to write fast, and use abbreviations, when recording Hebrew speech. The words of Papias imply that when Matthew’s Gospel was publicly read, listeners had difficulty making notes because it was in Hebrew.

Quoting Irenaeus Eusebius wrote: “Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue/ dialect”. Kirsopp Lake in a footnote to his translation explains that the word ‘also’ indicates that Matthew’s Gospel had an earlier spoken form. The only reason Markans have for rejecting the evidence of Eusebius is because it challenges their theory. Without evidence, most Markans have asserted that it is not possible to back-translate Matthew’s Greek Gospel into Hebrew. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1912 stated that this assertion did not undermine the words of Eusebius.

In recent years two Frenchmen have thrown more light on this question. Jean Carmignac, a specialist in Greek and Hebrew, spent eleven years from 1943 translating ‘The Book of Chronicles’. Then from 1954-63 he was engaged in translating ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’ from Qumran. Although his work was mainly concerned with the Old Testament, he noticed connections with the New.

In 1963 he attempted to translate one of the Greek Gospels back into the form of Hebrew used at Qumran. Carmignac was ‘absolutely dumbfounded’ to find how easy it proved to be. Realizing his translation would meet with ferocious criticism, he searched in the old monastic libraries of Europe to see if the translation had been attempted previously. At the same time he hoped to correct and improve his own work. Although lacking the time to make a thorough search, he soon found sixty translations of Gospels or portions of them. Some were by Rabbis who had become Christians and others by those wishing to dispute with Christians.

Carmignac was aging and had not published his scholarly findings. So his friends persuaded him to write a small book for the general public. This appeared in 1987. He not only asserted that Matthew’s Gospel was the first to be written, but that it was in Hebrew.

According to him, the order of composition was a Hebrew Matthew followed by a Greek Luke, and then by a Greek Mark. In order to conform to Markan priority, he presumed there must have been an earlier Hebrew version of Mark, which Mark later translated. If we ignore this presumption, his work dovetails with the Clementine tradition of Matthew-Luke-Mark. He dated Greek Mark as before 70 AD, so Matthew and Luke at an earlier date.

In 1953 Claude Tresmontant, a French Hebrew scholar, published a book dedicated to Hebrew thought. He then worked for years to produce a Hebrew-Greek dictionary. As he did this he was overwhelmed by how easy it was to back-translate the Gospels into Hebrew.

In his 1980 ‘Le Christ Hebreu’ [In English -1989], he explained in detail the Hebrew basis of the Gospels. He formed the opinion that Matthew in both Hebrew and Greek could be dated as being written soon after the Resurrection. Luke between 40-60 AD, and Mark 50-60 AD. While not confirming the Clementine order, this pointed to its likely possibility.

Tresmontant detected a Hebrew substructure to Mark’s Gospel. At first sight this could conflict with the normally accepted view that Mark recorded Peter speaking in Greek. But, if over 90% of the talks by Peter consisted of quotes from Matthew and Luke, the Hebrew substructure of these quotations would automatically show in Mark’s Gospel. The additions made by Peter would also have a strong Semitic tone because Peter was a native Aramaic speaker.

So the evidence produced by Carmagnac, Tresmontant, and over sixty Rabbis, is that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew. This is in accord with the historical records of Papias and Irenaeus. They say a Hebrew version for the Jews of Palestine, was composed first. A Greek version appeared when converts were made amongst those who spoke Greek only.

In 47 AD Western sailors learned how to utilize the monsoons to sail from Egypt to southern India in less than 100 days. Indian records show that Thomas the Apostle landed at Malankara, Kerala in 52 AD. After establishing seven churches he moved to Coramandel on the east coast where he was martyred in 68 AD. Irenaeus records that Pantaenus, director of the Alexandrian School of Sacred Learning from 180-192, paid a visit to India in 190 and was shown a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew characters. Pantaenus reported that it was the Apostle Bartholomew who had taken it to India. Thomas was called ‘Mar Toma’ [Lord or Bishop Thomas] so Pantaenus, who knew Hebrew but not the Indian languages, may have misheard this as ‘Bar Tolmai’, the Hebrew name for Bartholomew. Whether or not this copy of the Matthew’s Gospel had belonged to Thomas or Bartholomew, Panteanus had seen it in Hebrew. Yet Markans say it was written for a Greek community a hundred or more years after Thomas and Bartholomew were both dead.

In his ‘De Viris Illustribus’, Jerome states that Matthew wrote in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of the Jews and it was translated into Greek. He writes that: “the Hebrew itself is preserved even now in the library at Caesarea …” Jerome also says he: “was given the opportunity of transcribing this volume by the Nazarenes who use it in Beroea, a city of Syria”. He adds that Matthew, when quoting from the Old Testament, had used the Hebrew Scriptures not the Greek Septuagint.

 

[po18guy]

To summarize this thread, a Catholic “may” believe that Elmer Fudd wrote all of the Gospels. However, since there is zero physical evidence of authorship (all “autograph” originals disintegrating even before Saint Jerome could have them), we have only the pious tradition of the Church, which stems from the earliest days. As an alternative, we have the modern opinions of moderns who tend to dissent from all things Catholic.