Gospel authorship question: are the NAB notes definitive?

[paul_c]

I have a copy of the New American Bible published by the USCCB. The introduction of each Gospel describes a view of authorship and timing that seems inconsistent with what I understand to be Catholic tradition. Is this really the definitive position on Gospel authorship from the Church? If not, what is it doing in the USCCB sanctioned bible? Anyone have an opinion or better yet, knowledge on this?
Here are the intro notes for each one:

Matthew:

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.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Mark:

Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36- 39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tim 4:11; Philippians 1:24) and with Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources–miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion–so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark’s own day.

Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mark 7:3-4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mark 13:9-13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mark 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70

.

Luke:

Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col 4:14, Philemon 24 and 2 Tim 4:11. The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Luke 1:2). His two- volume work marks him as someone who was highly literate both in the Old Testament traditions according to the Greek versions and in Hellenistic Greek writings.

Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Luke 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. Some hold that Luke used Mark only as a complementary source for rounding out the material he took from other traditions. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition

John:

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (John 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.

Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament.

The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry (John 3:22) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus’ public ministry lasted for several years (see the note on John 2:13); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death (John 2:14-25; 5; 7-8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (John l8:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have a copy of the New American Bible published by the USCCB. The introduction of each Gospel describes a view of authorship and timing that seems inconsistent with what I understand to be Catholic tradition. Is this really the definitive position on Gospel authorship from the Church? If not, what is it doing in the USCCB sanctioned bible? Anyone have an opinion or better yet, knowledge on this?

The notes are of course perfectly acceptable to Catholic theology, they are mainstream theories, but they are not definitive (meaning, you are free as a Catholic to accept those theories or not).

 

[paul_c]

The notes are of course perfectly acceptable to Catholic theology, they are mainstream theories, but they are not definitive (meaning, you are free as a Catholic to accept those theories or not).

I understand that Catholic theology is not effected by the authorship or timeline of the Gospels. I am just surprised that the NAB is so emphatic in its support of the “Q” theory, when no “Q” document has ever emerged and it is in fact the speculation of 19th century German Protestants. I am also surprised that it seems to deny the traditional authorship of Matthew and John for the first and 4th gospels. I wonder what the signoff procedure is for scriptural notes such as these.

 

[diggerdomer]

I understand that Catholic theology is not effected by the authorship or timeline of the Gospels. I am just surprised that the NAB is so emphatic in its support of the “Q” theory, when no “Q” document has ever emerged and it is in fact the speculation of 19th century German Protestants. I am also surprised that it seems to deny the traditional authorship of Matthew and John for the first and 4th gospels. I wonder what the signoff procedure is for scriptural notes such as these.

The Q Theory is widely accepted, regardless of who originated it. The fact that German Protestant scholars developed it has nothing to do with its truth or validity of course. Still, it’s only a theory, and I’ve never heard anyone credibly claim that some day a Q document is expected to be discovered. It’s purely hypothetical–a useful theory for many, irrelevant for others.

The question of “authorship” is a bit more complicated, or nuanced, than some might think. The Church of course refers to Matthew and John as the authors of the respective Gospels there names are associated with, but we don’t have to believe that the actual process of producing the written Gospels required that the actual Apostles were the ones who took quill in hand and wrote them. They might have…or their disciples/followers might have. See CCC 126 and the associated references to Vatican II’s Dei Verbum.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I don’t trust the NABs notes whatsoever.

 

[paul_c]

The Q Theory is widely accepted, regardless of who originated it. The fact that German Protestant scholars developed it has nothing to do with its truth or validity of course. Still, it’s only a theory, and I’ve never heard anyone credibly claim that some day a Q document is expected to be discovered. It’s purely hypothetical–a useful theory for many, irrelevant for others.

The question of “authorship” is a bit more complicated, or nuanced, than some might think. The Church of course refers to Matthew and John as the authors of the respective Gospels there names are associated with, but we don’t have to believe that the actual process of producing the written Gospels required that the actual Apostles were the ones who took quill in hand and wrote them. They might have…or their disciples/followers might have. See CCC 126 and the associated references to Vatican II’s Dei Verbum.

I must be missing something because neither sources describe gospel authorship at all. They simply state that the Gospels are to be beleived as Apostolic in nature.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t trust the NABs notes whatsoever.

I’m with you on this, but it would seem that they would have had to be sanctioned by the USCBB, under whose banner the NAB is published, both on line and in hard copy form. This is very bothersome to me and I wondered if it bothered anyone else…

 

[diggerdomer]

I must be missing something because neither sources describe gospel authorship at all. They simply state that the Gospels are to be beleived as Apostolic in nature.

Exactly. They don’t say that Catholics have to believe e.g. Matthew and John sat down and wrote the Gospels themselves, nor do they say that you can’t believe that. What’s essential is that they are Apostolic, that is, along with God as author they were authored by the Apostles or their disciples…

 

[paul_c]

Exactly. They don’t say that Catholics have to believe e.g. Matthew and John sat down and wrote the Gospels themselves, nor do they say that you can’t believe that. What’s essential is that they are Apostolic, that is, along with God as author they were authored by the Apostles or their disciples…

Okay, but there are other Vatican documents that describe the authorship views of the Gospels. They date from around 1900. I just can’t put my finger on them. Maybe someone can help with this. And by the way, I agree that the actual authorship is not an article of faith. But I have had numerous discussions with Atheists, who always attack Gospel credibility based on the fact that they claim they are not truly Apostolic… The NAB notes play into this.

 

[diggerdomer]

Okay, but there are other Vatican documents that describe the authorship views of the Gospels. They date from around 1900. I just can’t put my finger on them. Maybe someone can help with this. And by the way, I agree that the actual authorship is not an article of faith. But I have had numerous discussions with Atheists, who always attack Gospel credibility based on the fact that they claim they are not truly Apostolic… The NAB notes play into this.

You’re referring to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which has much more recent teachings than from around 1900.

No, the NAB notes don’t play into Scripture not being Apostolic, any more than the Catechism does, or Vatican II documents do. What people read into them might (as with any of these sources, people are free to approach them with their own preconceived ideas and find support for a whole lot of things).

 

[tobinatorstark]

You’re referring to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which has much more recent teachings than from around 1900.

No, the NAB notes don’t play into Scripture not being Apostolic, any more than the Catechism does, or Vatican II documents do. What people read into them might (as with any of these sources, people are free to approach them with their own preconceived ideas and find support for a whole lot of things).

But the Vatican has official approval of the scripture that Catholics use and material that are to be read occasionally it is done by a Bishops committee. The Vatican rejected the 1986 NT and the 1991 Revised Psalms for liturgy. What we hear at mass from the NAB is different than the edition we have at home. Vatican II documents and Catechism have official approval and didn’t need revised to be approved to be read

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’m with you on this, but it would seem that they would have had to be sanctioned by the USCBB, under whose banner the NAB is published, both on line and in hard copy form. This is very bothersome to me and I wondered if it bothered anyone else…

Since the NAB was written by Catholic and Protestants alike notes are borderline and are very liberal in my opinion. I tend to stick with the Douay-Rheims. The Haydock Bible Commentary are 100% Catholic with no Protestant intervention.

 

[patg]

Okay, but there are other Vatican documents that describe the authorship views of the Gospels. They date from around 1900. I just can’t put my finger on them. Maybe someone can help with this. And by the way, I agree that the actual authorship is not an article of faith. But I have had numerous discussions with Atheists, who always attack Gospel credibility based on the fact that they claim they are not truly Apostolic… The NAB notes play into this.

Another good reference which discusses this subject is the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the PBC and Pope Paul VI (available online).

 

[thistle]

I understand that Catholic theology is not effected by the authorship or timeline of the Gospels. I am just surprised that the NAB is so emphatic in its support of the “Q” theory, when no “Q” document has ever emerged and it is in fact the speculation of 19th century German Protestants. I am also surprised that it seems to deny the traditional authorship of Matthew and John for the first and 4th gospels. I wonder what the signoff procedure is for scriptural notes such as these.

There is no “Q”. It is baseless speculation plucked out of thin air! Ask anyone to provide evidence to support “Q” and they cannot because it does not exist.

 

[diggerdomer]

Another good reference which discusses this subject is the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the PBC and Pope Paul VI (available online).

Thanks for adding that, yes, outstanding resource: bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcgospels.htm

 

[paul_c]

There is no “Q”. It is baseless speculation plucked out of thin air! Ask anyone to provide evidence to support “Q” and they cannot because it does not exist.

I agree with you on this wholeheartedly. To me, the simplest and therefore most likely explanation is that Matthew wrote the first gospel. Mark and Luke used it as a basis for their own gospels, using additional insight from Peter and Paul among others. If there really was a Q that was so important that it was used by Matthew and Luke, surely there would be a trace of it somewhere.

 

[Contarini]

I understand that Catholic theology is not effected by the authorship or timeline of the Gospels. I am just surprised that the NAB is so emphatic in its support of the “Q” theory, when no “Q” document has ever emerged and it is in fact the speculation of 19th century German Protestants.

Because the inferential evidence that Matthew and Luke have a common source is pretty strong. 19th-century German Protestants did not suffer a mystical mental block which prevents them from perceiving any truth.

I am also surprised that it seems to deny the traditional authorship of Matthew and John for the first and 4th gospels.

Again, because the evidence seems to point away from those traditional ascriptions, though I would argue that either documents or traditions from Matthew and John do lie behind the respective Gospels bearing their names.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I agree with you on this wholeheartedly. To me, the simplest and therefore most likely explanation is that Matthew wrote the first gospel. Mark and Luke used it as a basis for their own gospels, using additional insight from Peter and Paul among others. If there really was a Q that was so important that it was used by Matthew and Luke, surely there would be a trace of it somewhere.

Mark doesn’t make much sense on this theory, and it’s no accident that Mark was largely ignored for centuries. It’s basically the “condensed version” of Matthew. Why would someone bother to write such a document? And why, given Mark’s shorter length, are many of the stories actually told in more detail? And what about the tradition that Mark based his account on the reminiscences of St. Peter? That makes no sense given how dependent Mark is (on your account) on Matthew. (Whereas, if Mark wrote first, the traditions about Matthew can be accounted for by positing Matthew as the source for “Q.”)

It’s true that there is no direct evidence for Q. And it may well never have been a written document–it might be a body of oral tradition. But there is a lot of evidence that Mark wrote first, and if Mark wrote first there is strong inferential evidence pointing to a common source for the material that Matthew and Luke share but which is not found in Mark. Which is what we mean by “Q.”

The evidence for Q is, in fact, rather like the cosmological evidence for God. It’s indirect but still quite powerful. We infer the existence of Q from its effects.

Edwin

 

[paul_c]

Mark doesn’t make much sense on this theory, and it’s no accident that Mark was largely ignored for centuries. It’s basically the “condensed version” of Matthew. Why would someone bother to write such a document? And why, given Mark’s shorter length, are many of the stories actually told in more detail? And what about the tradition that Mark based his account on the reminiscences of St. Peter? That makes no sense given how dependent Mark is (on your account) on Matthew. (Whereas, if Mark wrote first, the traditions about Matthew can be accounted for by positing Matthew as the source for “Q.”)

It’s true that there is no direct evidence for Q. And it may well never have been a written document–it might be a body of oral tradition. But there is a lot of evidence that Mark wrote first, and if Mark wrote first there is strong inferential evidence pointing to a common source for the material that Matthew and Luke share but which is not found in Mark. Which is what we mean by “Q.”

The evidence for Q is, in fact, rather like the cosmological evidence for God. It’s indirect but still quite powerful. We infer the existence of Q from its effects.

Edwin

I read a thesis on this at one point that suggested that Mark was really written as a summary of a specific set of speaches by Peter, in which Peter used selected pieces of Matthew and elaborated on them, giving more of the details on selected stories. Luke also used Matthew as a source, adding parts that he got from interviewing others, including perhaps the Blessed Virgin. That these siggested that Matthew wrote his basic Gospel in HJebrew maybe as early as 35 AD. It seems clear that Luke’s Gospel was written prior to the death of Peter and Paul in ~64AD because of course acts ends before those events.

There is no evidence for Q. Q is merely a workaround to explain an order beginning with Mark that otherwise doesn’t make sense because of the sharing between Matthew and Luke. If you assume Matthew is first, as it was described historically, there is no need for a “Q”.

 

[diggerdomer]

I read a thesis on this at one point that suggested that Mark was really written as a summary of a specific set of speaches by Peter, in which Peter used selected pieces of Matthew and elaborated on them, giving more of the details on selected stories. Luke also used Matthew as a source, adding parts that he got from interviewing others, including perhaps the Blessed Virgin. That these siggested that Matthew wrote his basic Gospel in HJebrew maybe as early as 35 AD. It seems clear that Luke’s Gospel was written prior to the death of Peter and Paul in ~64AD because of course acts ends before those events.

There is no evidence for Q. Q is merely a workaround to explain an order beginning with Mark that otherwise doesn’t make sense because of the sharing between Matthew and Luke. If you assume Matthew is first, as it was described historically, there is no need for a “Q”.

As I think has been noted in this thread, you (we, Catholics) are free to believe just about anything you want regarding the authorship and dating of the Gospels. The majority of contemporary scholarship would not come to the conclusions you do, but that’s fine. No problem. Same with “Q.” We’re free to consider it a valuable resource for Scripture scholarship, or think it’s complete drivel. To be fair, though, no matter what one individually thinks about it, “Q” is far more than a workaround to explain an order beginning with Mark. Even if one assumes Matthew is first, there is legitimate scholarly reason to hypothesize about Q. Again, though, no one has to agree with it, disagree with it, or even care, to be Catholic.

Are we still on topic with your original posting and the original subject line in the thread you started here?