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

[Todd520]

joe, i think most people believe the actual scripture specifies the author, since each book is named in the bible. Why do you attribute to tradition what is already in scripture? (I did ask you for evidence they were originally anonymous in scripture)

Why is Gospel naming relevant to the message of Christ? I personally see no change to the message if the names were changed.

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?

 

[joe370]

=Todd520;7205811]joe, i think most people believe the actual scripture specifies the author, since each book is named in the bible. Why do you attribute to tradition what is already in scripture? (I did ask you for evidence they were originally anonymous in scripture)

Why is Gospel naming relevant to the message of Christ? I personally see no change to the message if the names were changed.

Don’t take my word on it. Here is a non-Catholic site. Just click on each respective gospel and let me know what you think?

abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/IndexNTIntr.htm

 

[joe370]

Hey Todd…Agreed. All I am saying is: we know who the author is of 4 gospels as well as the book of Hebrews because CC tradition has affixed those names to them in the 2nd century. I am just trying to understand why those sola scriptura advocates reject CC tradition (not all reject it) - and yet defer to a catholic tradition by claiming that the apostle Matthew the tax collector wrote the gospel of Matthew and that the apostle John, son of Zebedee wrote the gospel of John and the apostle Paul wrote the book of Hebrews?

Of course not every non-Catholic or catholic believes ( I’m assuming) - that those 5 men wrote those 5 books so they can rightfully say, we do not defer to catholic tradition.

Why is Gospel naming relevant to the message of Christ? I personally see no change to the message if the names were changed.

 

[jbecknell]

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.

Well, at the very least, I’m glad that you’re ok with it. To be frank though, nothing else that you’ve said up to this point takes your conclusions out of the realm of being suppositional and argumentative.

Why don’t you start from the beginning. I’ll make the wild assumption and say you’re not an orthodox Christian. So where do your beliefs come from?

 

[PNS2A]

Hi I find this topic really interesting. I believe in God and Jesus so I to have a few questions and these are questions that are just in general and most confused people will ask so please do not take into offence as you all have more knowledge them me.
I believe that religion is what you turn to when you seek the truth. I know the word of God is the truth and there should not be any faults in it. I have read some of the gospels as well as the old testaments but find it confusing. Firstly we all believe in God.
There are some Christians who believe in Jesus as being God others as Jesus being the son of God. Please can someone help me with this?
Secondly all four gospels are contradictive and none coincide with one another properly so my question is how can I differentiate between any so I myself can say I am following the correct criteria?
Thirdly I have read during Jesus’ time he prayed in synagogues which is the same as Abraham Moses etc? If I know this then where and when was the church first established? Also how these different named churches appear because from my understanding Jesus’ didn’t follows these churches.
I hope this isn’t too much and someone can assist me in these topics for I seek knowledge. Thanks!

 

[tester]

… I have non-Catholic friends that reject catholic tradition so I don’t understand why they believe the catholic tradition that Matthew, Mark Luke and John definitely wrote those anonymous gospels.

You wrong presumption is that you think Protestants are using the same meanings of words that you are:

As you claim that you are a former Protestant, who should know this.

for example: Did Columbus discover America?
Depends on what do you mean by “discover” and to what do you mean by “America”

Allow me to clarify:

Your Catholic perspective is that all of the early church Christians (including the Apostles) were Catholic.

I am in my mid 50s and I never was aware of that perspective until I visited this site.

So for the average Protestant , their definition of who is Catholic is different from yours.

Your Catholic perspective is that Catholic Tradition is Sacred and Infallible.
Protestant reject that those attributes of tradition.

As I previously posted

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

I as a Protestant accept the 2000 years history of the Christian Church:
** I reject that the tradition is either Sacred or Infallible.**

In summary: your OP includes the phrase” tradition of the CC,” will mean something different to a Protestant than to a Catholic:

Now to apply the above points to this discussion:

**If you asked Protestant if the early Christian Church (= body of believers) knew who wrote the Gospels and they passed that knowledge on to others, so that it became common knowledge; the answer is YES!!!

If you ask a Protestant do you believe that the tradition of the Catholic Church affixed the names Matthew, Mark Luke and John to the anonymous gospels: the answer is NO!!**

Going forward in your discussions with Protesatnts, Do NOT assume that Protestants are using the same defintions that you are:

 

[Sufjon]

I don’t think there any real contradictions. Most apparent contradictions can be explained fairly easily.

Thanks StTommyMore: I might start a thread on it. I’ve heard an explanation or two but the ones I have heard were a stretch. That said, I probably haven’t heard all of them, so maybe there are some that make sense.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Publisher]

Well, at the very least, I’m glad that you’re ok with it. To be frank though, nothing else that you’ve said up to this point takes your conclusions out of the realm of being suppositional and argumentative.

Why don’t you start from the beginning. I’ll make the wild assumption and say you’re not an orthodox Christian. So where do your beliefs come from?

My Journey of faith has been long and changing. I once accepted the things espoused of scripture that “conservative” Christians accept. But through study, my own life experience, my experience with God and a whole lot of prayerful consideration…I have found a faith tradition that allows me to “work out” my own salvation in this world.

Could I be wrong…you bet…but I’m not too worried about “error” concerning my beliefs…for there is grace…astounding amazing grace provided from the God I have found revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.

Where do my beliefs come from…life experience, study, prayer and a whole lot of “supposition” and “this makes sense”.

 

[simspt]

You wrong presumption is that you think Protestants are using the same meanings of words that you are:

As you claim that you are a former Protestant, who should know this.

for example: Did Columbus discover America?
Depends on what do you mean by “discover” and to what do you mean by “America”

Allow me to clarify:

Your Catholic perspective is that all of the early church Christians (including the Apostles) were Catholic.

I am in my mid 50s and I never was aware of that perspective until I visited this site.

So for the average Protestant , their definition of who is Catholic is different from yours.

Your Catholic perspective is that Catholic Tradition is Sacred and Infallible.
Protestant reject that those attributes of tradition.

As I previously posted

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

I as a Protestant accept the 2000 years history of the Christian Church:
** I reject that the tradition is either Sacred or Infallible.**

In summary: your OP includes the phrase” tradition of the CC,” will mean something different to a Protestant than to a Catholic:

Now to apply the above points to this discussion:

**If you asked Protestant if the early Christian Church (= body of believers) knew who wrote the Gospels and they passed that knowledge on to others, so that it became common knowledge; the answer is YES!!!

If you ask a Protestant do you believe that the tradition of the Catholic Church affixed the names Matthew, Mark Luke and John to the anonymous gospels: the answer is NO!!**

Going forward in your discussions with Protesatnts, Do NOT assume that Protestants are using the same defintions that you are:

A rose by any other name smells as sweet…

 

[Erich]

Joe,

Has your church infallibly declared that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

If so, where can I find this infallible declaration and how will I recognize it as being infallible?

For 2000 years the Church has taught that two Apostles, who had lived with Christ wrote gospels and two men, who knew some of the Apostles, wrote another two.

In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued Dei Verbum as a Doctrinal Constitution… you can read more about what Dei Verbum teaches, here.

 

[thevoiceofone]

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

That is not what I have learned about the Jewish culture at the time of Jesus. I don’t claim to know it all, by any means. I will happily and humbly accept the fact if I am wrong. Please tell me how you know this. I always seek to learn more. I was taught that priests and scribes were of the few members of the Jewish culture who could read and write, and that the scrolls they had were too sacred for any common men to even touch. But, during this discussion, I have recalled that Jesus read from a scroll in the synagogue when He announced the prophecy had been fulfilled to the listeners. Even tho His disciples considered Him a rabbi, early in His ministry it may have been rather bold to read from the sacred scrolls in the company of pharisees like that. I could have been taught wrong. I don’t know. Please enlighten me properly… give me sources (reading is my favorite hobby).

 

[thevoiceofone]

Hi I find this topic really interesting. I believe in God and Jesus so I to have a few questions and these are questions that are just in general and most confused people will ask so please do not take into offence as you all have more knowledge them me.
I believe that religion is what you turn to when you seek the truth. I know the word of God is the truth and there should not be any faults in it. I have read some of the gospels as well as the old testaments but find it confusing. Firstly we all believe in God.
There are some Christians who believe in Jesus as being God others as Jesus being the son of God. Please can someone help me with this?
Secondly all four gospels are contradictive and none coincide with one another properly so my question is how can I differentiate between any so I myself can say I am following the correct criteria?
Thirdly I have read during Jesus’ time he prayed in synagogues which is the same as Abraham Moses etc? If I know this then where and when was the church first established? Also how these different named churches appear because from my understanding Jesus’ didn’t follows these churches.
I hope this isn’t too much and someone can assist me in these topics for I seek knowledge. Thanks!

Just start a thread for each question you have and the answers will pour in.

As to your comment about the four Gospels contradicting… they really don’t. They are not four people’s version of the same story to be matched up. Most of the differences you may see are a matter of the points being made to each respective audience the Gospels were written for. Take the Nativity story, for example… Matthew’s Gospel focuses on Joseph’s part because men were more important in Jewish culture, while Luke’s Gospel focuses on Mary because the Gentiles were more open to the importance of women. If you combine the stories, you have a more full account of what happened, not a contradiction of what happened. Ancient authors were also less concerned with factual data than we are today. In one Gospel the Sermon on the Mount is on a mount, while another Gospel has the same sermon in a valley, but the sermon is the same… the message is the same… that’s what mattered to those authors… where He spoke those words doesn’t make much difference. Yet, some Gospels *do *make a point of where and when, sometimes for the sake of identifying a holy place for future pilgrims, perhaps, but many times to offer proof in an almost legal sense, especially the later ones like John. John’s Gospel is written as if the matter were on trial, because, at times, it literally was. The differences in the Gospels almost always make sense to us. I can’t remember any specific verses that are difficult to reconcile right now, but if you find one, start a thread for it. We can help each other figure it out.

 

[Layman]

I think I’m going to have to add amateur critical Biblical scholars to the list of people who I put on ignore, in real life. The list includes anyone who’s seriously interested in the Knights Templar, UFOs, astrology and 9/11. There’s just too much guff and no real value.

Given the times they were written in, I’d be surprised the Gospels agree at all. Even today, if you ask four people to document an event they were present at, you’ll get discrepancies.

Add 50 years and the Gospels still stand up well.

Also, these books were not meant to be historical accounts as we understand such today. They are evangelical; to transmit the Faith. They don’t contain exactly the same information because they were written by different people (for different audiences?).

Protestants are their own Popes; they decide, as individuals, what they will and won’t believe. An old Chinese saying: “He who teaches himself has a fool for a master”.

 

[Todd520]

Thanks for the reference indicating they were not named originally. I was not aware of this fact.

Can you please explain how the naming is relevant to the message of christ?
I don’t see why you consider this validation for tradition and the church. To me, they could be numbered 1-4.

Hey Todd…Agreed. All I am saying is: we know who the author is of 4 gospels as well as the book of Hebrews because CC tradition has affixed those names to them in the 2nd century. I am just trying to understand why those sola scriptura advocates reject CC tradition (not all reject it) - and yet defer to a catholic tradition by claiming that the apostle Matthew the tax collector wrote the gospel of Matthew and that the apostle John, son of Zebedee wrote the gospel of John and the apostle Paul wrote the book of Hebrews?

Of course not every non-Catholic or catholic believes ( I’m assuming) - that those 5 men wrote those 5 books so they can rightfully say, we do not defer to catholic tradition.

 

[Erich]

Also, these books were not meant to be historical accounts as we understand such today.

Historical accounts, as we understand such today, provide evidence for a fact of history, serve as a source of history, and show the development or evolution in proper chronological order. Seems to me that that’s exactly what Luke, at least, set out to do:

1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,
3 I too have decided, after investigating **everything **accurately anew, to write it down in an **orderly **sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

 

[simspt]

Papias wrote in the early second century

"When Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down, though by no means verbatim, as much as he remebered of the works and words of the Lord, for he had neither heard the Lord nor been in His company, but he subsequently joined Peter, as I said. Now, Peter did not intend to give a complete exposition of the Lord’s ministry, but delivered his instruction to meet the needs of the moment. It follows, then, that Mark was guilty of no blunder if he wrote, simply to the best of his recollections, an incomplete account."

If one accepts this description of the Gospel formation it implies that the the Gospels originated from the preaching and teaching of the Apostles, preserved by churches and put together by the Evangelists to provide a theological understanding of Jesus vs. the view that the Evangelists were impartial observers concerced strictly with chronological and biographical history of Jesus.

Lack of chronological sequence and verbatim accuracy are mentioned by Papias as well as the existence of oral transmission and adaptation to the needs of the Church.

 

[joe370]

=Todd520;7207249]Thanks for the reference indicating they were not named originally. I was not aware of this fact.

Can you please explain how the naming is relevant to the message of christ?
I don’t see why you consider this validation for tradition and the church. To me, they could be numbered 1-4.

Tradition, as opposed to the bible, gives us the names of the authors of the 4 gospels as well as the book of Hebrews, and I think we can trust that tradition just as we can trust the bible? If you believe this naming to be irrelevant, well, that’s cool…

 

[Todd520]

joe, please don’t ignore my question
I asked you to explain how the naming of the gospels is relevant
how it supports the supremacy of RCC Tradition?

Just repeating that they were named is not supporting your argument.

Tradition, as opposed to the bible, gives us the names of the authors of the 4 gospels as well as the book of Hebrews, and I think we can trust that tradition just as we can trust the bible? If you believe this naming to be irrelevant, well, that’s cool…

 

[joe370]

joe, please don’t ignore my question
I asked you to explain how the naming of the gospels is relevant
how it supports the supremacy of RCC Tradition?

Just repeating that they were named is not supporting your argument.

The supremacy of the RCC tradition??? What are you talking about??? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I think I am done talking to non-Catholics here at CAF; you people are way too defensive …One last time, as if it even matters:

CC tradition, as opposed to the bible, affixed the names of the gospels to the gospels. I was just wondering why some non-Catholics reject catholic tradition while embracing this particular catholic tradition…I never said anything about the “supremacy of RCC tradition…”

Take care brother…

 

[pnewton]

I think I’m going to have to add amateur critical Biblical scholars to the list of people who I put on ignore, in real life.

It’s the professionals that we need worry most about. Their literal bread and butter is find new theories. If they are to make money and rise to the top among their peers, it is in there best interest to reject traditional ideas. It is why I said earlier there is little scholarship in modern scholarship. There is certainly not objective, blind scientific method.