Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves

[runandsew]

Hi

Thanks for responding.

Your above sentences still remain vague to me unless elaborated and defined further. What are the traditional authors? You mean Mathew, Mark, Luke and John or someone else?

These were committed to writing much later as I understand, they were in the form of oral tradition not even named, so how could they differentiate one from the other.

Anyone, please

It would be useful, if while replying, one mentions one’s denomination for a clear understanding, mine is written in my signatures.

Thanks

Let’s say II write you a letter, but don’t sign my name to it.
You really love this letter and share it with others.
You tell the others that this is a letter from runandsew.
You finally grow old and it is passed on to your children.
The keep this letter from runandsew.
It is passed onto their children and their children.
All of them know this letters as “the letter from runandsew”

Did runandsew give that letter the title “the letter from runandsew”?

No.

But it is from the testimony passed down from you that it was indeed written by runandsew.

This is sort of how we know who wrote the Gospels.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

**As I understand it, the Church teaches that God inspired the various writers to write truthfully about those things God wished us to understand about Him and salvation. The rest is the work of the writer, and depends on his understanding of the world around him. **

Please don’t take this as a loaded question, but is this understanding basically the ‘working position’ of catholic scripture scholars, like the PBC, or has it been formally explained this way in some official magesterial document?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Let’s say II write you a letter, but don’t sign my name to it.
You really love this letter and share it with others.
You tell the others that this is a letter from runandsew.
You finally grow old and it is passed on to your children.
The keep this letter from runandsew.
It is passed onto their children and their children.
All of them know this letters as “the letter from runandsew”

Did runandsew give that letter the title “the letter from runandsew”?

No.

But it is from the testimony passed down from you that it was indeed written by runandsew.

This is sort of how we know who wrote the Gospels.

While that is a possible theory, the fact of the matter is in most cases we simply don’t know. Mark for sure, we really have very little to go on. He may have been a follower of Peter, but there is also evidence that he may have been a follower of Paul. Or it may be someone altogether unknown who wrote down what a “Mark” preached. We at this time have no clear evidence.

As I stated earlier, it was common in those days for a writer to write the Gospel of . . . (whatever person he was writing about). It was their thoughts after all. We have lots of evidence that those who wrote the bible, used the same methodologies of other people in the area. Various cultures within a region tended to write the same kind of creation stories, the same kind of hero stories, So it would not be unusual if some of our gospel writiers also used this technique which was honest to say the least. The attributed the work to the one responsible for what it contained. The writer merely set it down (in many cases quite btilliantly I may add.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Please don’t take this as a loaded question, but is this understanding basically the ‘working position’ of catholic scripture scholars, like the PBC, or has it been formally explained this way in some official magesterial document?

I really couldn’t say, its the way I learned it years ago, its the way its written in most any interpretation of scripture, its what most here say.It’s certainly what every professor in Catholic college ever taught me, most were either theologians or scriptural experts. Inerrency is a protestant concept. Catholics have always said the scripture is inspired. They are not the same. It certainly is no “working concept” The only people here who I have seen arguing for strict inerrency are those who are essentially fundamentalists. The Church takes a dim view of such views.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I really couldn’t say, its the way I learned it years ago, its the way its written in most any interpretation of scripture, its what most here say.It’s certainly what every professor in Catholic college ever taught me, most were either theologians or scriptural experts. Inerrency is a protestant concept. Catholics have always said the scripture is inspired. They are not the same. It certainly is no “working concept” The only people here who I have seen arguing for strict inerrency are those who are essentially fundamentalists. The Church takes a dim view of such views.

Just a few messages back I posted a quote from a papal encyclical with the term innerant referring to scripture. So I don’t understand how you can say it’s just a protestant concept? Unless you’re saying that it’s not a Catholic concept anymore? It’s very difficult to follow your logic.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think that both Catholic and Protestantism views scripture as inerrant, but defines the term differently. Here’s a quote from the Pontifical Biblical Commission that explains:

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the “re-readings” () of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

from ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

 

[paarsurrey]

But it is from the testimony passed down from you that it was indeed written by runandsew.
This is sort of how we know who wrote the Gospels.

Hi

Thank you for explaining us the phenomenon. If the process explained by you is factual , I think, then you would simply say “it was indeed written by runandsew” but you won’t probably say “it is according to runandsew”.

Kindly read the sentence ( and if possible passage/article) under discussion from the Catholic Encylopedia and see if your explanation matches with that there:
Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

**As I understand it, the Church teaches that God inspired the various writers to write truthfully about those things God wished us to understand about Him and salvation. The rest is the work of the writer, and depends on his understanding of the world around him. There are rather glaring problems in some of the historical books that are I presume simply the lack of knowledge of the writer about who was King at a given time, etc.
I guess one can simply assume that what we think of as mistakes are simply lack of understanding on our part. But upon investigation, many it appears are explained quite easily. **

Hi

I think what you have tried to explain, if I have not understood it correctly, the writers could make mistakes about time, space and substance.

That would mean they were not able to guide the humanity in many dimension. If the dimensions are not specified or defined that would mean all sorts of; while this is not your intention.

Am I right?

 

[paarsurrey]

that there was a connection between the sacred texts of Buddhism, and modern medical tools: “Sutta” and “suture”.
xan
jonathon

Hi

Very interesting!
Would you like to explain further the quote from you post as given aboe?

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Please don’t take this as a loaded question, but is this understanding basically the ‘working position’ of catholic scripture scholars, like the PBC, or has it been formally explained this way in some official magesterial document?

Hi

Sorry to bother you sir. English is not my mother tongue. Would you please explain for me “loaded question” “PBC” “official magesterial document”?

Thank you very much.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think that both Catholic and Protestantism views scripture as inerrant, but defines the term differently. Here’s a quote from the Pontifical Biblical Commission that explains

I think if you reread what you have just quoted especially I believe the latter two paragraphs, you will see the difference.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi

I think what you have tried to explain, if I have not understood it correctly, the writers could make mistakes about time, space and substance.

That would mean they were not able to guide the humanity in many dimension. If the dimensions are not specified or defined that would mean all sorts of; while this is not your intention.

Am I right?

I’m not sure I understand you. What I mean is, that protestants who are fundamentalist believe every word in the bible is correct and perfect. They reject any evidence that the bible books have been written, rewritten, edited, redacted, re-edited, etc. They cannot believe this because it would mean God dictated it incorrectly the first time.

Catholics believe that God inspired the writers, kept them correct on those matters God deemed essential to our faith and salvation. Other matters of history, science, etc, He allowed the writer to explain as the writer understood it. Obviously over time, our understanding of history and science grows and thus some things in the bible appear wrong or incorrect. But the lessons to be drawn from the texts are preserved by God as correct. For example in the opening of Mark, Mark alludes to certain texts of Isaiah. Actually there are several other books he quotes as well, but he seemed unaware that they were not in Isaiah. But the underlying truth that Mark attempts to convey is perfectly retained as God wished it to be.

I hope this helps.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Hi

Sorry to bother you sir. English is not my mother tongue. Would you please explain for me “loaded question” “PBC” “official magesterial document”?

Thank you very much.

Hi

“Loaded question” is a trick question that people might use when arguing. But it isn’t a fair question because it a false presupposition. In other words, I was trying to tell SpiritMeadow that my question was sincere, not an attempt to debate.

PBC is the pontifical biblical commission. It is a group of scholars that the Vatican or the Pope has put together to study the scriptures. They often come up with new theories, like the idea that the gospels weren’t actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

An official magesterial document would be an official document like a papal encyclical, issued by the Pope or by the bishops at a church council.

You might wonder how all this applies to your question. While it is not disputed that nothing in the gospels says who wrote them, only recently have catholic scholars begun to suggest they might not have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Conservatives like me suggest that while scholars should be free to do their studies and form conclusions, we should wait for a magesterial document to tell us if these ideas are indeed compatible with the Catholic faith. I suspect that the Church will not accept the notion that people other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote the gospels.

God Bless,
Neil

 

[jblake]

SpiritMeadow;:

I’d always thought the Gospel of John and Revelation were written by the same person, but not the letters of John? Do you have any take on this? .

Not really.
The most controversial theory is that:

• The Gospel of John was written by one individual.
• The Gospel of John was then redacted to delete evidence of who wrote it;
• The Letters of John were written by a second individual;
• The Revelations of John were written by a third individual;

The Gospel of John has obviously been redacted. Whether the redactions are as extensive as the theory claims I don’t know.

One major issue is that once a document has been translated, the linguistic pattern of the author is lost. This means that if,

• John was translated by one individual;
• The letters were translated by a second individual;
• Revelations was originally written in Greek;
  and all were originally written by John, the forensic analysis would not support that claim, despite it being true.

On the flip side, this type of forensic analysis does have some interesting implications for both Aramaic Primacy and early Gnosticism.

xan

jonathon

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Not really.
The most controversial theory is that:

• The Gospel of John was written by one individual.
• The Gospel of John was then redacted to delete evidence of who wrote it;
• The Letters of John were written by a second individual;
• The Revelations of John were written by a third individual;

The Gospel of John has obviously been redacted. Whether the redactions are as extensive as the theory claims I don’t know.

One major issue is that once a document has been translated, the linguistic pattern of the author is lost. This means that if,

• John was translated by one individual;
• The letters were translated by a second individual;
• Revelations was originally written in Greek;
  and all were originally written by John, the forensic analysis would not support that claim, despite it being true.

On the flip side, this type of forensic analysis does have some interesting implications for both Aramaic Primacy and early Gnosticism.

xan

jonathon

thank you so much for the information.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi

You might wonder how all this applies to your question. While it is not disputed that nothing in the gospels says who wrote them, only recently have catholic scholars begun to suggest they might not have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Conservatives like me suggest that while scholars should be free to do their studies and form conclusions, we should wait for a magesterial document to tell us if these ideas are indeed compatible with the Catholic faith. I suspect that the Church will not accept the notion that people other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote the gospels.

God Bless,
Neil

Thanks for clearing things up a bit for me. I now understand what is mostly the difference between us. You allow scholars to go forward but await the Church’s decision as to their value. I tend to make up my own mind and assume the Church will agree when she gets to it…lol…

I’m curious as to why you don’t think the Church will ever drop the authorship. It certainly is no threat I would presume to any doctrine contained within the gospels is it? No one expected ECF to have the tools we have available today, and moreover there had yet to develop any “science” of historical writing as yet. Inuendo and hearsay were commonly used as direct evidence for instance. We could no have in most cases expected them to know any better. If today we do, then how could the Church feel harmed in admitting that?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks for clearing things up a bit for me. I now understand what is mostly the difference between us. You allow scholars to go forward but await the Church’s decision as to their value. I tend to make up my own mind and assume the Church will agree when she gets to it…lol…

I’m curious as to why you don’t think the Church will ever drop the authorship. It certainly is no threat I would presume to any doctrine contained within the gospels is it? No one expected ECF to have the tools we have available today, and moreover there had yet to develop any “science” of historical writing as yet. Inuendo and hearsay were commonly used as direct evidence for instance. We could no have in most cases expected them to know any better. If today we do, then how could the Church feel harmed in admitting that?

From what I’ve read about the issue (which admittedly isn’t that much) it seems that there is enough evidence that Matthew Mark Luke and John actually wrote the gospels, that scholars won’t be able to present a strong enough case to, lets say, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were other authors. Also, the early church fathers seem to have been pretty consistent on who the authors were, and it could be argued that it has been held everywhere at all times by the faithful that the Evangelists actually wrote the gospels. That would make it infallible teaching that the Evangelists wrote the gospels, and the church never has, and can’t, change an infallible teaching.

But that being said, I have to admit that I’m not really sure if it was taught infallibly, and im not really sure just how strongly scholars can demonstrate that the 4 evangelists didn’t write the gospels.

I noticed that Dei Verbum says the gospels are of “apostolic origin” … I’m not sure whether that is backing away from the previous position or not.

 

[paarsurrey]

You might wonder how all this applies to your question. While it is not disputed that nothing in the gospels says who wrote them, only recently have catholic scholars begun to suggest they might not have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Conservatives like me suggest that while scholars should be free to do their studies and form conclusions, we should wait for a magesterial document to tell us if these ideas are indeed compatible with the Catholic faith. I suspect that the Church will not accept the notion that people other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote the gospels.

God Bless,
Neil

Hi

I am really thanful to you for explaining things to me for a better understanding,

Regards

 

[SpiritMeadow]

From what I’ve read about the issue (which admittedly isn’t that much) it seems that there is enough evidence that Matthew Mark Luke and John actually wrote the gospels, that scholars won’t be able to present a strong enough case to, lets say, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were other authors. Also, the early church fathers seem to have been pretty consistent on who the authors were, and it could be argued that it has been held everywhere at all times by the faithful that the Evangelists actually wrote the gospels. That would make it infallible teaching that the Evangelists wrote the gospels, and the church never has, and can’t, change an infallible teaching.

But that being said, I have to admit that I’m not really sure if it was taught infallibly, and im not really sure just how strongly scholars can demonstrate that the 4 evangelists didn’t write the gospels.

I noticed that Dei Verbum says the gospels are of “apostolic origin” … I’m not sure whether that is backing away from the previous position or not.

I’m in no position to argue seriously but one and that is Mark. There is extreme controversy over who Mark was and who he followed. He might have followed Peter, and there is some evidence of that, but admittedly it is double hearsay at best. Others think he is the John Mark of Acts who traveled with Paul. But in the end, scholars have no clear idea. The sad thing is that I have seen apologist “scholars” claim certain things of which they know certainly that the position is the actual minority one. The don’t even bother to tell people in honesty that fact, but proclaim their minority position as a given as though there was no dispute. I’m finding one has to be very careful especially in reading on the web. Such matters are not seen in peer reviewed journals where they face the ridicule of their peers for such dishonesty.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m in no position to argue seriously but one and that is Mark. There is extreme controversy over who Mark was and who he followed. He might have followed Peter, and there is some evidence of that, but admittedly it is double hearsay at best. Others think he is the John Mark of Acts who traveled with Paul. But in the end, scholars have no clear idea.

That’s interesting, I want to read more about this.

The sad thing is that I have seen apologist “scholars” claim certain things of which they know certainly that the position is the actual minority one. The don’t even bother to tell people in honesty that fact, but proclaim their minority position as a given as though there was no dispute.

Yes, I’ve noticed that a lot of apologists have no problem leaving their Christian ethic of honesty at the door when going about their apologetics. I don’t see how dishonesty can be used to serve God. It is really quite embarassing, and insulting to the people who hear it.

But I also have a criticism of the scholarly views I read too… not that they lack honesty, but that, as objective scholars, they seem to lack the respect for certain ancient writers that a person of faith would normally have. As a person of faith, when investigating these things, I’ll give more weight to the testimony of a saint than to a regular person. But a historian wouldn’t be able to do that.

So that’s why I think the truth might lie somewhere in the middle of the scholarly and the apologetic views.