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

[joe370]

RD, where in the New Testament does the New Testament identify the apostle Matthew as the author of the gospel of Matthew, and Mark as the author of the gospel of Mark and Luke as the author of the gospel of Luke and the apostle John the author of the gospel of John? Maybe I overlooked it. I believe these men are the authors because the tradition of the CC tells me that they wrote them. Is there another way to know who wrote these 4 gospels outside CC tradition?

Papias
earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
130-140 AD

Where did you get this information Joe?
Do you have any proof that from 70 AD to 120 AD they were anonymous?

 

[joe370]

I agree with you Tommy. What I could not answer as a former non-Catholic was:

Where in the New Testament does the New Testament identify the apostle Matthew as the author of the gospel of Matthew, and Mark as the author of the gospel of Mark and Luke as the author of the gospel of Luke and the apostle John the author of the gospel of John? Maybe I overlooked it.** I believe these men are the authors because the tradition of the CC tells me that they wrote them.** Is there another way to know who wrote these 4 gospels outside CC tradition?

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.

 

[Erich]

If James and John were both fishermen (at that time and place), I would doubt they were literate enough to physically write anything.

They were, to use today’s vernacular, self-employed businessmen. While they most certainly did not have to contend with quarterly IRS filings, payroll deductions, and the like, I’m sure they were literate. They certainly had to be literate enough to keep the books, negotiate contracts, make capital purchases (new boats and nets every so often), hire employees and/or subcontractors (you never hear about any of the Apostles being sole proprietors, except maybe Matthew the tax collector – who of course also had to be literate), etc.

 

[joe370]

Publisher that seems reasonable regarding Mark and Luke.

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.

 

[joe370]

Sufjon, thanks for the youtube; where in the New Testament does the New Testament identify the apostle Matthew as the author of the gospel of Matthew, and Mark as the author of the gospel of Mark and Luke as the author of the gospel of Luke and the apostle John the author of the gospel of John? Maybe I overlooked it**. I believe these men are the authors because the tradition of the CC tells me that they wrote them.** Is there another way to know who wrote these 4 gospels outside CC tradition?

youtube.com/watch?v=f9DFOo7DIVg

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[joe370]

Todd, where does the in the New Testament does the New Testament identify the apostle Matthew as the author of the gospel of Matthew, and Mark as the author of the gospel of Mark and Luke as the author of the gospel of Luke and the apostle John the author of the gospel of John? Maybe I overlooked it.** I believe these men are the authors because the tradition of the CC tells me that they wrote them.** Is there another way to know who wrote these 4 gospels outside CC tradition?

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?

 

[Erich]

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.

From The Authors of the Gospels:

PAPIAS (c. 60-139) was the bishop of Hieropolis. Eusebius said Papias wrote five books and mentions his commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John. Ancient Armenian literature records Papias writing commentaries on Luke and John ((RO 171)). Papias had carefully studied at least three of the Gospels. Hieropolis was close to the Christian centres at Colossae and Laodicea, and about one hundred and fifty kilometres from Ephesus along a good surfaced road. So contact with John the Apostle would have been easy. No doubt John took a great interest in Papias as he trained to be a bishop, and afterwards gave him good advice. His life span overlapped that of John by 30-40 years and Papias speaks of The Presbyter, who traditionally has been identified as John the Apostle. An extract from the fourth book by Papias and preserved by Eusebius reads: And this the Presbyter used to say: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the **cheias**, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthews this was said: “For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able”`. ((EH 3: 39, 8 and RO 166r)).

            Here we have Papias quoting John the Apostle`s words in defence of the style of the Gospel of Mark. So the `poor                 Greek` of Mark is not something first noticed in the 18th century. The extract, `... the Presbyter used to say`,                 being in the plural, shows that aspects of Mark`s gospel had to be repeatedly defended by John the Apostle against                 criticism.

So, the “later era” of which you theorize had to be between the time of Pentecost and the time of Papias. Not very late at all.

 

[joe370]

except, of course, for the Table of Contents

Put there by the Catholic Church…

 

[joe370]

=tskrobacz;7203675]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.

I agree with you…

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.

Agreed…

 

[joe370]

Tester some (not all) - of my sola scriptura friends reject tradition. Sorry if my question upset you. Based on the non-Catholics response to my questions, that one will be my last thread directed at non-Catholics. Where in the New Testament identify the apostle Matthew as the author of the gospel of Matthew, and Mark as the author of the gospel of Mark and Luke as the author of the gospel of Luke and the apostle John the author of the gospel of John? Maybe I overlooked it. I believe these men are the authors because the tradition of the CC tells me that they wrote them. Is there another way to know who wrote these 4 gospels outside CC tradition?

 

[joe370]

=Luigi Daniele;7204609]Where in Scipture does it say that?

It does not say that and I don’t embrace that notion. Some, not all, of my protestant sola scriptura friends say that.

 

[joe370]

=Luigi Daniele;7204667]They may have not actually physically written “their” books, but that does not preclude them dictating them, I’d say.

I firmly believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of those 4 gospels and I believe it because it is a tradition of the Catholic Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

RD, where in the New Testament does the New Testament identify the apostle Matthew as the author of the gospel of Matthew, and Mark as the author of the gospel of Mark and Luke as the author of the gospel of Luke and the apostle John the author of the gospel of John? Maybe I overlooked it. I believe these men are the authors because the tradition of the CC tells me that they wrote them. Is there another way to know who wrote these 4 gospels outside CC tradition?

Why are you asking one question Joe, getting it answered or refuted, and then asking another? Is this the real question you were wanting to get answered?

 

[joe370]

Why are you asking one question Joe, getting it answered or refuted, and then asking another? Is this the real question you were wanting to get answered?

These were simply questions that troubled me as a former non-Catholic. If you don’t want to answer this question, well, that’s cool…However, if you do then that would be nice too.

 

[thevoiceofone]

They were, to use today’s vernacular, self-employed businessmen. While they most certainly did not have to contend with quarterly IRS filings, payroll deductions, and the like, I’m sure they were literate. They certainly had to be literate enough to keep the books, negotiate contracts, make capital purchases (new boats and nets every so often), hire employees and/or subcontractors (you never hear about any of the Apostles being sole proprietors, except maybe Matthew the tax collector – who of course also had to be literate), etc.

I doubt there’s any way either of us could prove this matter one way or another. Nevertheless, it doesn’t take a whole lot of history to know that the ancient common Jew didn’t know much about reading and writing, and the time and materials to practice were too expensive. That’s what the scribes were for, and their craft was funded by wealthy patrons, usually. My wording may have been a little severe to say the Apostles probably couldn’t write anything, but I don’t think they kept a lot of books in their trade back then, as you described.

It’s probably not worth arguing about Matthew, but… being a “tax collector” doesn’t necessarily mean he had any accounting functions. He could have been nothing more than a henchman. But, neither of us know enough to make any statements about whether he *had *to be literate or not, do we?

Luke was a physician. We know that. Chances are, he could read and write. But, I don’t know anything about the medical field and its training back then, so, maybe literature wasn’t necessary for that either… I just don’t know for sure. But, I tend to think he actually wrote his two books.

 

[StTommyMore]

I doubt there’s any way either of us could prove this matter one way or another. Nevertheless, it doesn’t take a whole lot of history to know that the ancient common Jew didn’t know much about reading and writing, and the time and materials to practice were too expensive. That’s what the scribes were for, and their craft was funded by wealthy patrons, usually. My wording may have been a little severe to say the Apostles probably couldn’t write anything, but I don’t think they kept a lot of books in their trade back then, as you described.

It’s probably not worth arguing about Matthew, but… being a “tax collector” doesn’t necessarily mean he had any accounting functions. He could have been nothing more than a henchman. But, neither of us know enough to make any statements about whether he *had *to be literate or not, do we?

Luke was a physician. We know that. Chances are, he could read and write. But, I don’t know anything about the medical field and its training back then, so, maybe literature wasn’t necessary for that either… I just don’t know for sure. But, I tend to think he actually wrote his two books.

Jewish boys could read and write. It was part of their culture so that the could read in synagogue.

 

[Todd520]

These were simply questions that troubled me as a former non-Catholic. If you don’t want to answer this question, well, that’s cool…However, if you do then that would be nice too.

joe, thanks for confirming these questions no longer bother you, now that YOU ARE a Catholic.

Do you realize it is disengenuous to pretend you have these questions, when you don’t?

Thus It appears you are applying suppositional logic in your threads to lead other people to your same conculsion, to proselytize them to Catholicism

 

[StTommyMore]

joe, thanks for confirming these questions no longer bother you, now that YOU ARE a Catholic.

Do you realize it is disengenuous to pretend you have these questions, when you don’t?

Thus It appears you are applying suppositional logic in your threads to lead other people to your same conculsion, to proselytize them to Catholicism

There is nothing wrong with leading people to the Truth.

 

[tester]

… Is there another way to know who wrote these 4 gospels outside CC tradition?

here is the issue in a nutshell:

If Saint John the Apostle told Polycarp that “I wrote the Gospel According to John” : or that Matthew wrote the “Gospel According to Matthew”

your answer would be that St. John was Catholic with a capital “C”.

** IF you, a Catholic, define every single believer prior to 250AD as Catholic (upper case “C”) then you Catholic viewpoint is correct (lower case “c”)**

 

[joe370]

Todd520;7205291]joe, thanks for confirming these questions no longer bother you, now that YOU ARE a Catholic.

Do you realize it is disengenuous to pretend you have these questions, when you don’t?

Thus It appears you are applying suppositional logic in your threads to lead other people to your same conculsion, to proselytize them to Catholicism

Todd I am simply attempting to find out how present day non-Catholics handle the same questions that troubled me as a former non-Catholic. There is a reason why you are not addressing the OP. Instead you would rather change the subject to me and my supposed attempt to convert you or other non-Catholics to the Catholic faith, even though I told you that I don’t care if you belong to the CC. I can only surmise that you are calling me a liar…