Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by tradition

[thevoiceofone]

I am no scholar but the best way to confirm what is true or not is like anything in general to look at the whole picture. We know that the New Testament relied heavily on the Old Testament hence the reason why there are variations between each author and similarities to the Old Testament.
Let’s say an author writes a biography of you (The original source) you then pass away. 10 years down the line lets say four of my friends decide to write about me, firstly they will give account of my life from what I have said and done, as well as some of their own opinion of me (not forgetting they are human so they are bound to make mistakes about me especially 10 years later. We have difficulties remembering what happened a year ago). This is where you will get the variation. One of my friend may like me more than the other so he may write things about me that are more pleasant than the other etc. So the best thing to do is look at all four sources, we then need to review and confirm what all four have in common. Whatever matches you can confirm agreement and is potentially true. However you cannot be a 100% sure so you go back to the original source. Since in this case the Original Bible is no longer in existence we need to go back to where the four gospels were originally drawn up from – The Old Testaments. So we need to then go and look at the commonalities and say do they agree with the original source. Using this procedure potentially you should come close to the truth however due to the fact the original Bible is no long in existence you can never be 100% sure. Hope this help!

There are many references by the NT authors to the OT, certainly… but, why are you saying the four Gospels were originally drawn up from the OT? The way I’m reading that just doesn’t make sense to me. I hope I’m just misunderstanding you.

It’s true that the original papyrus of the Gospels and Epistles are not known to exist today, but the originals were copied over and over… the words are the same. One very good matter of fact the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed is that the words of Scripture found there faithfully match the words we read today in our Bibles. That is a wonderful witness for us all to have greater faith in the writings that define our faith.

As to your notion of your friends writing about you ten years after your death and getting things wrong because of their memory, that is not so much the case for the ancient ones. They had very good memories, and very little distraction. Culturally, our memories are getting much worse with the advancement of technology. I can remember my best friend’s phone number from thirty years ago, but I can’t remember my wife’s current cell phone number. I don’t have to! It’s programmed into my phone… I just have to push a button and there she is. This was not the case thirty years ago; it certainly wasn’t like that two-thousand years ago.

You also said, “Since in this case the Original Bible is no longer in existence we need to go back to where the four gospels were originally drawn up from – The Old Testaments.” That doesn’t make any sense to me either. The OT was passed down orally for much longer than the NT was. Most of the Pentateuch wasn’t even written down until the Babylonian exile. It was also the custom of the Jews to never write down the sayings of a teacher (rabbi, or prophet) while the teacher was still alive. The Apostles probably followed that same custom, unless Jesus instructed them to write down His sayings, which is unlikely. He probably would have picked His disciples from a more literate stock than that of the local fishermen, if that were the case.

Anyway, you started off by saying you weren’t a scholar, so I’m not trying to bash you. I hope you don’t feel that way. I’m not the scholar I should be, so I still have a lot to learn my self. But, I felt the need to correct some of the points you made. So, there it is.

 

[thevoiceofone]

Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC,

That’s just not true. There are writings by the early Church Fathers that make reference to NT writings in the 1st and 2nd century.

so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?

Why indeed reject the traditions of the Catholic Church? But, I don’t think the authorship of the Gospels will convince any of them otherwise. Protestants have much better reasons (by their own reckoning) to reject the Catholic Church and its traditions. God loves them anyway. Many (hopefully most) of them will come to realize the fullness of the truth in time.

 

[Alan55]

Publisher, my friend, you certainly have a way with people on these threads. You do make these little discussions more interesting, that’s for sure. God loves you, no matter how stubborn you may be about your faith in certain “scholars” that only you (and some of your friends, maybe) find credible.

Anyway, if by “living witnesses” we are talking about those who actually walked with Jesus during His earthly ministry, then Luke is the only one who would not fall into that category. But, Luke faithfully wrote the accounts of many eye witnesses. The Gospels didn’t spring up out of a community’s perception of the stories they heard, the Gospels were given by authoritative witnesses to the communities, aimed toward respective communities in the focus of their content. The Gospel of James was written primarily for the Jews, as the Gospel of Luke was written primarily for the Gentiles, and so forth.

Have you read any of the writings of the early Church Fathers yet?

I agree with Publisher, your condescending comments nothwithstanding. Publisher’s citation to modern bible scholarship is on the mark. I know that modern bible scholars tend to disagree with the Church Fathers regarding authorship of the gospels and such matters as the priority of Matthew over Mark, for example. The conclusions of contemporary scholarship are founded primarily on an examination of the bible texts themselves, and I find their arguments convincing. You’re entitled to your own opinion on the matter, of course. In a grudge match between you and the likes of Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, John Meier, Daniel Harrington, Luke Timothy Johnson, etc., my money’s on contemporary bible scholars.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, my friend, you certainly have a way with people on these threads. You do make these little discussions more interesting, that’s for sure. God loves you, no matter how stubborn you may be about your faith in certain “scholars” that only you (and some of your friends, maybe) find credible.

Anyway, if by “living witnesses” we are talking about those who actually walked with Jesus during His earthly ministry, then Luke is the only one who would not fall into that category. But, Luke faithfully wrote the accounts of many eye witnesses. The Gospels didn’t spring up out of a community’s perception of the stories they heard, the Gospels were given by authoritative witnesses to the communities, aimed toward respective communities in the focus of their content. The Gospel of James was written primarily for the Jews, as the Gospel of Luke was written primarily for the Gentiles, and so forth.

Have you read any of the writings of the early Church Fathers yet?

Friend “thevoiceofone”,

I’m glad you enjoy my posts…even though I am stubborn…I think it’s the Quaker in me…we are a very stubborn people.

The gospels were not written by "living witnesses. As more and more Gentile entered the Church…the church in isolated locations “drifted” far from it’s Jewish roots…out of this time came the Synoptic gospels…I’m of the opinion that the gospels were written by “God-fearer” converts who didn’t fully understand the Hebrew scriptures…which is why we find so many miquotes in the gospels from the prophets by the “evangelists”…Christianity had become more Gentile than Jewish.

Yes, I have read some of the ECF’s writings…they do not resonate with me and IMO are filled with many pious legends and myths meant to “prove” the brand of Christianity they were seeking to espouse.

If your beliefs give you joy and bring you closer to the Eternal One…and causes your life to be filled with mercy, kindness, love, peace and hope…I rejoice with you that you have found a belief system that “works” for you.

I know God loves us because of who we are…not inspite of who we are…we are His beloved children seeking to Hear the Voice as it whispers to our hearts…I have found Him in the Quiet of Quaker worship…and I rejoice with you if you have found Him in Catholic worship and belief.

Peace to you friend.

 

[Erich]

The conclusions of contemporary scholarship are founded primarily on an examination of the bible texts themselves, and I find their arguments convincing.

From The Gospels Are Historical (emphases mine):

…[W]hile Markan priorists reject the historical evidence, the supporters of Jerome’s sequence reject the findings of literary analysis. In this apparent battle between ‘history’ and ‘science’, most students are attracted to Markan priority because it appears to be based on ‘science’

For various reasons a third way, which claims the order of writing was Matthew-Luke-Mark-John, was pushed to the side in the debate between the other two. We will examine this third way later, but here we will point out three reasons why the Markan priority theory should be challenged.

Firstly, every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history.

Secondly, it conflicts with the doctrinal teaching of the Church regarding authorship.

Thirdly, the whole Markan logical edifice is balanced on a presumption. This presumption is that the Gospel of Mark was carefully thought out in the author’s room and composed by him in his best Greek style.

If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation.

So let us turn to the alternative third explanation based on the records of the historians who lived before Jerome, on a careful use of modern literary methods and in conformity with doctrine. This explanation is the oldest in Christianity, and has been confirmed by recent studies. It claims the order of writing to be Matthew-Luke-Mark-John.

Most modern books are written by Markan priorists, so fail to provide the historical, literary and doctrinal evidence supporting this third (or Clementine) way. Supporters of Jerome’s sequence do provide quotations from the early historians but are selective.
…

 

[pnewton]

The gospels were not written by "living witnesses. As more and more Gentile entered the Church…the church in isolated locations “drifted” far from it’s Jewish roots…out of this time came the Synoptic gospels…I’m of the opinion that the gospels were written by “God-fearer” converts who didn’t fully understand the Hebrew scriptures…which is why we find so many miquotes in the gospels from the prophets by the “evangelists”…Christianity had become more Gentile than Jewish.

But if we do not know who wrote them, how can we presume to know who did not write them.

 

[AntiTheist]

But if we do not know who wrote them, how can we presume to know who did not write them.

You’re missing the point. If we don’t know who wrote them, then we don’t know who wrote them. They’re these anonymous texts that date from – at the earliest – decades and decades after the events supposedly happened and that reflect what first century Christians believed.

There are no grounds for claiming that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of contemporaries of Jesus – all evidence suggests that they are anonymous and come from later in the first century.

That really tends to take the wind out of the sails of claims like “the Gospels are historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead!”

 

[tester]

If it is not in scripture it is not to be believed.

\QUOTE]

wow …after all of the posting dialog that you have been involved with in the last month or so… you seriously can throw that statement out there?
When other posters where questioning your sincerity in your posts: I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You are no different than the Protestants who continually would call Catholics “idol worshippers”…
After they (and you ) are corrected: they continue to repeat the same misguided points.

 

[Publisher]

But if we do not know who wrote them, how can we presume to know who did not write them.

The same way one would “presume” to know anything about an anyonomous writing…internal evidence is a biggie in my opinion…IF you find comfort in believing the canonical gospels were in fact written by those whose names has been assigned to it…wonderful.

 

[thevoiceofone]

I agree with Publisher, your condescending comments nothwithstanding. Publisher’s citation to modern bible scholarship is on the mark. I know that modern bible scholars tend to disagree with the Church Fathers regarding authorship of the gospels and such matters as the priority of Matthew over Mark, for example. The conclusions of contemporary scholarship are founded primarily on an examination of the bible texts themselves, and I find their arguments convincing. You’re entitled to your own opinion on the matter, of course. In a grudge match between you and the likes of Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, John Meier, Daniel Harrington, Luke Timothy Johnson, etc., my money’s on contemporary bible scholars.

Okay then. My money’s on the early Church Fathers.

I’m not ignorant of modern Bible scholarship. There is much that can be learned from some of those guys you listed, but, scholars (even Catholic ones) *can *be wrong. The Protestants and Atheists and all other religions have scholars of their own, but their scholarly wisdom has not yet brought them back home to the Catholic Church yet, has it?

Publisher and I are friends, by the way, and I don’t think you know all about the Bible scholarship he is referring to. He holds to some scholarly ideas that are *way *out there, brother. Publisher and I are both working hard to understand and reform each other, privately.

Peace.

 

[pnewton]

The same way one would “presume” to know anything about an anyonomous writing…internal evidence is a biggie in my opinion…IF you find comfort in believing the canonical gospels were in fact written by those whose names has been assigned to it…wonderful.

I for one have always found the internal evidence to support the assigned authors. Matthew, for example has more hebraisms. He also makes it a point to tie in the lineage. John is in more colloquial and personable. He goes straight to the point. Also, the method of organization along thought as opposed to chronology seems more apt to an earlier writing as opposed to a later compilation, in my estimation.

 

[thevoiceofone]

You’re missing the point. If we don’t know who wrote them, then we don’t know who wrote them. They’re these anonymous texts that date from – at the earliest – decades and decades after the events supposedly happened and that reflect what first century Christians believed.

There are no grounds for claiming that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of contemporaries of Jesus – all evidence suggests that they are anonymous and come from later in the first century.

That really tends to take the wind out of the sails of claims like “the Gospels are historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead!”

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re just wrong. There is much more evidence than the four Gospels that Jesus rose from the dead. Also, when you say “***all ***evidence suggests that they are anonymous”… maybe you just didn’t give that much thought before writing it. I would suggest reading the Gospel of Mark again. It is filled with little details that wouldn’t be there if not for an eye-witness observation. Many details that Mark would not have seen, but Peter did. Mark (or someone working with Mark) recorded the account as it was given by Peter. Mark may have witnessed much himself. There is a tradition that the disciple who lost his clothes running away from those who arrested Jesus is Mark. That may or may not be; I don’t know. But, the Gospel of Mark was not written “decades and decades” after the events that took place, either. It was written very soon after the events that took place.

 

[Erich]

There are no grounds for claiming that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of contemporaries of Jesus – all evidence suggests that they are anonymous and come from later in the first century.

Not all evidence suggests this. New Testament scholar Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (which, of course, are datable before 70 or 79).

Thiede actually argued that since the main comparative script (from Nahal Hever) is generally dated no later than AD 50, the possibility of a date around the middle of the first century for the Magdalen papyrus would be possible. Matthew D’Ancona even says as much in the book he co-wrote with Thiede, Eyewitness to Christ:

“…Yet Thiede…argued that they * were of astonishingly early origin, dating from the mid-first century A.D…”

This review of that book* even describes how Thiede arrived at that date:

“…Thiede reexamined the fragments, using state-of-the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede’s tests and skill appear to be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have met with strong opposition from critics…”

Well,* of course* Thiede’s conclusions “have met with strong opposition from critics.” Since Mark’s Gospel is commonly dated between 64 and 70, a date of 60 (or even as early as 50) for Matthew would have important implications for the dating of Mark (and for Markan priority). Not only that, but a date of 60 (or even as early as 50) for Matthew supports the Clementine theory that Matthew – an eyewitness Apostle – wrote first.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

If it is not in scripture it is not to be believed.

Where in Scipture does it say that?

 

[Publisher]

A good history of the New Testament and especially the gospels is the “Pre-Nicean New Testament” by Robert Price.

While he is “extreme” in some areas…he pretty much “measures up” to most biblical scholars.

Very few biblical scholars believe the names attributed to the gospels actually wrote the gospels.

 

[thevoiceofone]

A good history of the New Testament and especially the gospels is the “Pre-Nicean New Testament” by Robert Price.

While he is “extreme” in some areas…he pretty much “measures up” to most biblical scholars.

Very few biblical scholars believe the names attributed to the gospels actually wrote the gospels.

I haven’t found any scholars yet that argue against Luke as the author of Luke and Acts. I am familiar with the scholarly propositions against the true authorship of the Gospels. If James and John were both fishermen (at that time and place), I would doubt they were literate enough to physically write anything. But, the Gospels are the accounts of the people whose name they bear, at least.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

They may have not actually physically written “their” books, but that does not preclude them dictating them, I’d say.

 

[Publisher]

I haven’t found any scholars yet that argue against Luke as the author of Luke and Acts. I am familiar with the scholarly propositions against the true authorship of the Gospels. If James and John were both fishermen (at that time and place), I would doubt they were literate enough to physically write anything. But, the Gospels are the accounts of the people whose name they bear, at least.

I do not believe so…they are religious texts putting forth in narrative form what the various Christian communities had come to believe about Jesus of Nazareth.

While Luke/Acts may have been circulated together…they also are anonymous…“Luke” as author is “tradition” from a later era.

 

[pnewton]

. If James and John were both fishermen (at that time and place), I would doubt they were literate enough to physically write anything. But, the Gospels are the accounts of the people whose name they bear, at least.

John lived much later, and in view of the miracle of Pentacost, it was surely possible. Again, many modern scholars have a pre-conceived bias against the miraculous.

 

[joe370]

Woodland, I firmly believe that Matthew, Mark Luke and John are the authors of those 4 gospels and we know this thanks to the tradition of the Catholic church, for these men are not identified as the authors of those 4 gospels in the NT. If they are then please show me where I missed it? I am told that tradition is not to be believed because it is not taught in the bible, yet the tradition that the authors of the 4 gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are accepted.

Thanks…

I have just recently read in my new Ignatius Study Bible just such a claim, which was promptly rebuked, that the Gospels were written by persons other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no evidence to suggest alterior authorship other than the uninspired reflections of so-called modern biblical scholars. No one in the early Catholic Church even suggested alternative authors and anonymous authorship. The Gospels have always been in the recorded writings of the Church referred to as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Modern scholarship always tried to find the “real” truth, the “hidden” truth as something that has been kept from the faithful by the Catholic Church. Many modern scholars are little more than a gang of Dan Browns, writers of heretical fiction based on the need to sooth their own egos and disbelief and create a justification for their so-called work.