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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC, so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?
 
joe370 said:
Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC, so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?
Click to expand...
I am not sure this was the case. This is what I can remember…Mark was a disciple of Peter and wrote his gospel, with Peter’s approval, because their disciples asked Mark to. John wrote his about AD 100 (+/- years), and it was to supplement the 3 gospels, and not add to what was already written, and affirmed as true what was already written. Matthew was one of the Apostles, and Luke was a disciple of Paul.
 
Hey pablope
pablope said:
I am not sure this was the case. This is what I can remember…Mark was a disciple of Peter and wrote his gospel, with Peter’s approval, because their disciples asked Mark to. John wrote his about AD 100 (+/- years), and it was to supplement the 3 gospels, and not add to what was already written, and affirmed as true what was already written. Matthew was one of the Apostles, and Luke was a disciple of Paul.
Click to expand...
Does the bible say that Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, wrote his gospel? Does the bible tell us that Luke, who was a disciple of Paul, wrote the gospel of Luke? After reading John I cannot determine if John is the apostle John. I could have overlooked something. What you have said is the traditional acceptance of the Catholic church, but scripture is silent and I am told by my protestant friends (some, not all):

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

From all my research I was able to conclude the following: the 4 gospels and the book of Hebrews were originally anonymous documents of whose authors nothing is known outside the tradition of the Catholic church. Please let me know if my research is wrong? I have been wrong many a time…Perhaps this thread will help us to find the answer. 👍

Thanks pablope…🙂
 
The names of the Gospel writers were always known in conjuction with the Gospels they wrote. It is how the canon of scripture was eventually discerned with the possible exception of Hebrews from the fourth century. It is interesting to note that while a Protestant will not accept anything outside the Bible and will not believe anything inside the realm of Catholic Tradition, they forget that Scripture itself falls squarely in that last category. They simply would not know what Scripture was or wasn’t if Catholic Tradition had not first informed them of that fact. Why believe Scripture? Because it’s inerrant? Just to be flip, so is a finely-tuned math book. Because it’s the Word of God? Says who? Muslims? Hindus? We Christians believe it’s the very Word of God because it is in fact the truth, brought to you and all Christians by the Catholic Church. If we say the words of Scripture are from God, knowing at the same time that they were written by fallible men, how honestly could we prove that they were inspired? It’s an impossible task if we don’t make some appeal to an authority outside of Scripture that will validate that belief. There indeed, must be an appeal to authority. And if that authority is fallible, then we can never be sure that be our belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture is sound. Yet Protestants believe exactly that. Why? Or they have the misinformed belief that somehow Scripture validates Scripture. In what way? Mormons will point to the very same process to validate the Book of Mormon. They will say, read it, and that the Holy Spirit will inform you that it is the truth. And because there are plenty of Mormons around, itself testifies to the truthfulness of the Mormon claims. How therefore, can Protestant Christians inform them of error when they will have to tell you that it is the very same process by which they identify true Scripture? Eventually, like it or not, they will have to appeal to tradition. For Protestants that goes back to Luther in the sixteenth century, for Mormons that goes back to Joseph Smith in the nineteeth. For Catholics that goes back to Christ, in the first century and to Peter His first Apostle. We have a Tradition that goes all the way back to Christ that precedes even the Scriptures, based on the Apostles, and grounded in the knowledge that Christ founded His Church based on four things or marks. We can identify His Church because it is One (how many protestant denominations are there?), Holy, Catholic (universal in it’s teachings), and Apostolic. That is how we know Scripture is the Word of God, because Christ, speaking through His Church, said so.
 
joe370 said:
Hey pablope

Does the bible say that Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, wrote his gospel? Does the bible tell us that Luke, who was a disciple of Paul, wrote the gospel of Luke? After reading John I cannot determine if John is the apostle John. I could have overlooked something. What you have said is the traditional acceptance of the Catholic church, but scripture is silent and I am told by my protestant friends (some, not all):

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

From all my research I was able to conclude the following: the 4 gospels and the book of Hebrews were originally anonymous documents of whose authors nothing is known outside the tradition of the Catholic church. Please let me know if my research is wrong? I have been wrong many a time…Perhaps this thread will help us to find the answer. 👍

Thanks pablope…🙂
Click to expand...
though technically “anonymous” the writers were known. If you know anything about the ancient world, you would know that truly anonymous writings are suspect. Authority of a text is given to a text hen its author is known. For this reason it cn be concluded that the early Church knew who wrote the Gospels. As for Hebrews, one tradition connect the book to Paul, and the language is very Pauline. In addition it is directed towards a hetereogenous community of Jews being drawn back into the Mosaic covenant (most likely Jerusalem). This is conjecture, but if Jewish Christians in Jerusalem is the audience, then there is good reason for the absence of Pu’s name, ss Paul’s last encounter with Jerusalem has him running for his life.
 
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.
 
joe370 said:
Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC, so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?
Click to expand...
Most credible modern biblical scholars do not accept the authorship of them being “living witnesses”. Any good study Bible will confirm this…even those published by religious bodies who tend to be “conservative” in belief.
 
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!
 
The gospels were written by an author of unkown origin from one of the various Christian communities that formed around the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth…Jewish communities…Christianity was FIRST a Jewish sect like the Pharisees, Saduccees, Essenes etc…which put forth the stance they were the legitimate expression of the Jewish faith. In time Gentiles were added to their numbers…Gentiles who had little knowledge of Jewish practice…these are the “God Fearers” of the “Nations” outside Israel.

The authors of the gospels were members of these communities…their works express WHAT THOSE COMMUNITIES had come to believe about Jesus of Nazareth. All of the gospels were written some 40-70 years after Jesus died. They were not written by eyewitnesses. Mark was probably first as Matthew and Luke draw upon his gospel for their own as more “tradition” and “theology” was developed cocnerning Jesus of Nazareth.

John was written toward the end of the first century or the beginning of the 2nd and has the most developed “christology” of the all the gospels. The Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter were also used by various congregations along with the others as they were circulated. The Gospel of Peter was not accepted “universally” by the congreations formed around the Middle East and other metropolitan areas. GoT also had a geographical area of influence as the only copies we have I believe are in Coptic.

The progression of belief between the gospels is there to see…Paul in his “authentic letters” has Jesus being vindicated and raised as God’s Son at the resurrection…Mark has Jesus becoming God’s Son at his baptism…Luke and Matthew have Jesus God’s Son at his birth…but both of their nativity stories are mutually exclusive of one another and contradict…they evidently had different sources for their nativity stories…John has Jesus as the pre-exixtent Word made flesh and claims diety prior to his incarnation.

The Johnanine communities held a different understanding than the Markan communities. There is not a lot of evidence that he based his gospel on any of the synoptics…but it believed he was most likely aware of them.

Paul in 1 Cor gives us the earliest “version” of the eucharist…which Mark used…and in turn so did Luke and Matthew…John’s gospel omits the “words of institution” of the Last Supper and replaces it with the “Foot washing” and his “high priestly prayer” of John 17.

Each gospel reflects the developing beliefs of the fledgling Christian communities…by the mid 2nd century the “proto-orthodox/catholic” traditions developed to eventually become the dominant expression of Christianity.
 
Publisher said:
Most credible modern biblical scholars do not accept the authorship of them being “living witnesses”. Any good study Bible will confirm this…even those published by religious bodies who tend to be “conservative” in belief.
Click to expand...
Ah, the appeal to false authority, or “they say”. Yes, the more “modern” the scholar the more likely they will reject apostolic authorship, the deity of Christ and any real hint of the miraculous. Yet this is not the mind of the Catholic. This is not our Faith. But this does point to the need of a dynamic, living and visible Body of Christ here on Earth: the one holy and apostalic Catholic Church.
joe370 said:
Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC, so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?
Click to expand...
First, there is internal evidence in the gospel. For example, Luke writes to Theophilus in both Luke and Acts and ties the two together. Then in Acts, while chronicling the journeys of Paul, switches from a third person narrative to a first person plural narrative when he joins with Paul. Here is a second century account of the authorship from a disciple of Polycarp, who also listened to John, as their lives overlapped.
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

There is nothing dogmatic in the Church about the authorship, but I am at loss as to why someone would believe scholars millenium removed rather than those who were second and third generation Christians, unless one was trying to support a pre-conceived notion against the Sacred Scriptures. But then, that seems to be the primary mission of modern scholarship. It is modern, but seldom scholarly (my opinon).
 
joe, please support your argument
  • where is there evidence the gospels were considered anonymous
  • why is the subsequent tradition on ‘naming’ deemed so profound that it must draw one to the RCC?
joe370 said:
Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC, so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?
Click to expand...
 
Publisher said:
The gospels were written by an author of unkown origin from one of the various Christian communities that formed around the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth…Jewish communities…Christianity was FIRST a Jewish sect like the Pharisees, Saduccees, Essenes etc…which put forth the stance they were the legitimate expression of the Jewish faith. In time Gentiles were added to their numbers…Gentiles who had little knowledge of Jewish practice…these are the “God Fearers” of the “Nations” outside Israel.

The authors of the gospels were members of these communities…their works express WHAT THOSE COMMUNITIES had come to believe about Jesus of Nazareth. All of the gospels were written some 40-70 years after Jesus died. They were not written by eyewitnesses. Mark was probably first as Matthew and Luke draw upon his gospel for their own as more “tradition” and “theology” was developed cocnerning Jesus of Nazareth.

John was written toward the end of the first century or the beginning of the 2nd and has the most developed “christology” of the all the gospels. The Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter were also used by various congregations along with the others as they were circulated. The Gospel of Peter was not accepted “universally” by the congreations formed around the Middle East and other metropolitan areas. GoT also had a geographical area of influence as the only copies we have I believe are in Coptic.

The progression of belief between the gospels is there to see…Paul in his “authentic letters” has Jesus being vindicated and raised as God’s Son at the resurrection…Mark has Jesus becoming God’s Son at his baptism…Luke and Matthew have Jesus God’s Son at his birth…but both of their nativity stories are mutually exclusive of one another and contradict…they evidently had different sources for their nativity stories…John has Jesus as the pre-exixtent Word made flesh and claims diety prior to his incarnation.

The Johnanine communities held a different understanding than the Markan communities. There is not a lot of evidence that he based his gospel on any of the synoptics…but it believed he was most likely aware of them.

Paul in 1 Cor gives us the earliest “version” of the eucharist…which Mark used…and in turn so did Luke and Matthew…John’s gospel omits the “words of institution” of the Last Supper and replaces it with the “Foot washing” and his “high priestly prayer” of John 17.

Each gospel reflects the developing beliefs of the fledgling Christian communities…by the mid 2nd century the “proto-orthodox/catholic” traditions developed to eventually become the dominant expression of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Um wrong again. The Gospels were written by those who they are attributed to, as was the opinion held by the fathers and is supported by internal evidence.
 
Publisher, really? Do you have even one argument in your text that’s not suppositional?
 
jbecknell said:
Publisher, really? Do you have even one argument in your text that’s not suppositional?
Click to expand...
Friend, if holding to your beliefs concerning the authorship of the gospels makes sense to you…I’m ok with it. Your position makes no sense to me what so ever. I don’t believe in the fanciful need to declare authorship for the gospels when they do not claim any author internally…nor in any of the NT. The addage “nature abhors a vacuum” seems to apply to the proto-orthodox/catholic group…so they ‘provided’ the names of authors and “spun a story” and called it “tradition”…I’m ok with that…it makes no sense to me…so I don’t accept it.

What I do find compelling is the biblical scholars that seek to put together this “jigsaw” of gospel composition…is their “supposition” 100% accurate? Probably not…but then neither is the “pious faith story” which makes no sense what so ever to me. It is through the biblical scholars I have read and studied that make the most sense and are the most credible.

But you must accept the teaching of your church that make the most sense to you in your faith walk…if those beliefs strengthen your faith…wonderful.

Peace to you friend.
 
joe370 said:
Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC, so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?
Click to expand...
Does it really matter? Whether a living witness or the product of the oral tradition of the time the early church saw fit to capture the message of Jesus in writing during the early centuries…they knew it was critical to preserve his message for future generations. No doubt 2 eye witnesses to Jesus would write 2 distinctly different Gospels - each from their own vantage point. In the early centuries there were in fact some 30 Gospels written. However, prior to 313 when Christianity became the state religion of Rome, Christians were being tortured and publicly executed…around 180 it was decided to “clarify the faith” by choosing 4 widely accepted Gospels - mainly for the purpose of helping early Christians know what it was they were dying for.
 
Publisher said:
Most credible modern biblical scholars do not accept the authorship of them being “living witnesses”. Any good study Bible will confirm this…even those published by religious bodies who tend to be “conservative” in belief.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top