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

[StTommyMore]

Are you saying the Church doesn’t have a postion on this?
I would think the fact they are named in scripture is proof of the Church position
(but not proof of claimed anonymous origin)

The Church does not have a position on Q. This is beyond the scope of what the Church does.

 

[joe370]

RD, you said:

I am referring to the title right above the text.

That title right above the text of each gospel was not put their by Matthew Mark Luke or John. That title right above the text was put their by CC tradition. You believe the title, above each gospel that says the following was part of the original gospels but they were not:

The gospel according to Luke

The gospel according to Mark

The gospel according tp John

The gospel according to Matthew

That is why everyone, Catholic scholar or Protestant scholar, agrees that those individual books were anonymous. Do a little research on it. Google it. Prove me wrong. Prove that those titles were in the original gospels. I can send you tons of protestant scholarly works that insist that those books were anonymous. Iranaeus was the first person to affix those names to those books and he did it long after those authors died. Those authors do not identify themselves in the text above each gospel, in the original gospels. If you still don’t believe me, well, that fine…

 

[joe370]

RD, for example here is what Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce writes:

“It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospels are anonymous, whereas the ‘Gospels’ which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels… The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John are well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition.”

 

[joe370]

This is the best argument I have seen when Christian scholars are faced with the reality of dealing with the anonymity of the Gospels:

“I have noted that in making this argument, critics never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as anonymous in the same sense that the Gospels are.”

 

[joe370]

RD the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves?

Protestant quote:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”

Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, The Case for Christ.

Catholic encyclopedia:

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, “the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as a common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy . . . did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was ‘according to’ this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications”. It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

 

[Layman]

Flippin’ heck! Is this CSI or the Catholic Church?

I suppose they should have made sure their publishers (and all subsequent ones) gave them due credit.

 

[Todd520]

The Church does not have a position on Q. This is beyond the scope of what the Church does.

If the Church does not have a position, then it appears that while the Gospels where given names for convenience, they are not labeled as part of RCC Tradition

 

[Rightlydivide]

RD, you said:

That title right above the text of each gospel was not put their by Matthew Mark Luke or John. That title right above the text was put their by CC tradition. You believe the title, above each gospel that says the following was part of the original gospels but they were not:

The gospel according to Luke

The gospel according to Mark

The gospel according tp John

The gospel according to Matthew

That is why everyone, Catholic scholar or Protestant scholar, agrees that those individual books were anonymous. Do a little research on it. Google it. Prove me wrong. Prove that those titles were in the original gospels. I can send you tons of protestant scholarly works that insist that those books were anonymous. Iranaeus was the first person to affix those names to those books and he did it long after those authors died. Those authors do not identify themselves in the text above each gospel, in the original gospels. If you still don’t believe me, well, that fine…

No, everyone does not agree with that at all. First of all, I have to question if you have read my posts that carefully. You just stated that Irenaeus was the first person to affix those names to the books. Ireanaeus wrote around what year? 180 AD. Of course, this contradicts your original claim, in the title of this thread, that it was the year 250 AD.
I have repeatedly used the name of Papias writing around the year 130 AD. A half century earlier than you just mentioned. Papias writes:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could

As far as the Catholic Encyclopedia’s argument, I am glad you included it. Lets read what it says. Its actually fascinating because all of the proof it offers agrees with me, I will underline the proof, but then he asserts something else. Lets look

The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era (SUPPORTS MY POSITION). Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time (SUPPORTS MY POSITION). Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century (SUPPORTS MY POSITION HOWEVER HE DOES NOT STATE WHY THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED EARLIER). That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day (HE DOES NOT STATE WHY LOL)

Joe, you have just illustrated how despite the proof of the earliest existing documents, some scholars because of their presuppositions will continue to deny the evidence. Of course the Catholic Encyclopedia is 100 years old but we digress…
As far as Blomberg, I would like to see his proof. Well actually of course I have read his work.
The part about me doing research is kind of funny, you have to do research to earn degrees Joe, you know that.

 

[Steven_John]

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 dont think you can connect the today business man to a fisherman then.

What books did they have to keep? are their fragments of these books been found?
How do you know they had contracts to sell their fish?
Would it not be more likely they sold them in a market environment the same as every one else of that day?
Every one would have gained work and pay tax on their income. How do you know they had contractors.
Would they not have just hired help? ie if you work for me you can have “x” part of the catch or a denari for a days work?

Where i live it was only decades ago we had illiterate market gardeners so being a fisherman just doesn’t mean they had necessity of literacy.

 

[Steven_John]

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

Is it, did Yeshua (pbwh) ever ask questions he knew the answer to?

Are people seeking to be like him?

Asking questions encourages people to think and it is non threatening promoting discussion above argument.

Thats my opinion from reading the bible and listening to peoples sharing, but understand from a worldly perspective what you say is true.

 

[diggerdomer]

I will give you a non-Catholic accredited link that illustrates why the CC, via tradition, believes this. Just click on each respective books and see for yourself. If this non-Catholic link will not suffice then I can provide another:

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

If the catholic early church fathers did not correctly identify the names of the men who wrote those gospels and the book of Hebrews then why do you believe that those men wrote those books? After all, those books never make that claim.

Thanks for responding Joe. As you said, the link you provided is non-Catholic, so really doesn’t address my question. Of course many Christians (Catholic or not) believe such, which is fine. My point is that the Catholic Church does not require (nor deny) such belief. Catholics are free to belief such, or not.

 

[diggerdomer]

Irrelevant to the thread…If not then when? PM me so we don’t derail the thread…

I wasn’t trying to derail the thread, sorry if it came across that way. And if it’s irrelevant, I again apologize, but you’re the one who brought it up. The emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. proclaimed Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Constantine in 313 (or so) A.D. issued an Edict of Toleration that made Christianity “licit.”

 

[diggerdomer]

So why do you believe that those men wrote those books??? Again, the bible is silent on the matter.

I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the authors of Scripture.

 

[diggerdomer]

Again, the bible is silent as to who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Hebrews. Catholic tradition alone identifies those men as the authors of those books. Catholic tradition affixed those names to those books in the 2nd century. Research it yourself; don’t take my word on it…

I have no problem with the names associated with the various writings of the New Testament. But, as the Catholic Church allows, that does not mean specifically that the individual person himself physically wrote that particular writing attributed to him. “Authorship” in ancient times could mean a number of things in addition to the way we would likely consider it, literally, today.

 

[diggerdomer]

I will state the facts again.

1. Scripture is not silent about who wrote the gospels. All the gospels have titles.

Yes, today.

But do you have any evidence of 1st century originals, that include the author’s name in the body of the text?

In other words, what is the basis for your facts?

1. There is no evidence the gospels existed without these titles at any time in history. In other words, there are no copies of the gospels without titles. That is a fact.

Again, any evidence for this supposed fact? From what I know, we have no copies of original texts from the first century New Testament (at least most, if not all, the New Testament was written in the first century).

3What does exist is that in 130 AD Papias mentions the authors of the gospels.

Yes he does. Papias is of course not infallible.

1. There are no copies of the gospels without their titles from any time in history.

Well, there are no copies at all from the first century, right? So we’re missing a hugely significant fact for this argument. What copies (century) are you arguing from?

1. There is no proof they existed without their titles prior to their first mention by Papias in 130 AD.

Of course. Likewise, there is no proof they did not.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Gospel of Mark and John were written by Mark and John. For Sure. And there is dated actual proof existing of this. Mark was taught by Peter and the Catholic Church has the info on this.

I have it here, I studied it and read it years ago. You’ll have to allow me to find it. But I assure you it exists. Matthew and Luke were off-shoots of Mark and the actual authors are not known but believed to be followers of Peter due to the writting style and heavy borrowing from Mark.

Though I don’t recommend Wiki-Pedia theres a graph you can google to show how the authors borrowed from each other and ultimately Mark. John has nothing to do with the other three.

This isn’t a new arguement. Matter of fact I’m positive the info I have on this is in a 1961 Catholic Daily Missle. And I’m positive its been argued much longer than that.

Some old argument another day is all.

That opinion is perfectly acceptable with Catholic teaching.

The point is, it’s not required by Catholic teaching.

Just a point.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is the Q hypothesis, and although it is the majority view, it is not required to be held by anyone.

No, what was written in the post you replied to is not the Q hypothesis.

You are correct, of course, that the Q hypothesis is not required to be held by anyone.

 

[diggerdomer]

If the Church does not have a position, then it appears that while the Gospels where given names for convenience, they are not labeled as part of RCC Tradition

You might misunderstand. Saying the Church does not have a position on the “Q theory” is completely different from saying the Church does not have an opinion on the authorship of the Gospels.

The Q Theory is nothing more than a scholarly hypothesis. Acceptable with Catholic tradition but not definitive nor required for faith.

The authorship of the Gospels is dealt with in Church teaching e.g. in the Catechism and the II Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

 

[joe370]

=Rightlydivide;7215879]No, everyone does not agree with that at all. First of all, I have to question if you have read my posts that carefully. You just stated that Irenaeus was the first person to affix those names to the books. Ireanaeus wrote around what year? 180 AD. Of course, this contradicts your original claim, in the title of this thread, that it was the year 250 AD.

RD, you know I said: prior to 250 AD…I did not say it was the year 250…

I have repeatedly used the name of Papias writing around the year 130 AD. A half century earlier than you just mentioned. Papias writes:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could

Papaias is not Matthew or Mark. Papias is one of the first people prior to 250 to affix the names Matthew and Mark to Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark do not claim to be the authors of Matthew and Mark. Those books are anonymous.

As far as the Catholic Encyclopedia’s argument, I am glad you included it. Lets read what it says. Its actually fascinating because all of the proof it offers agrees with me, I will underline the proof, but then he asserts something else. Lets look

*The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era (SUPPORTS MY POSITION). Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time (SUPPORTS MY POSITION). Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century (SUPPORTS MY POSITION HOWEVER HE DOES NOT STATE WHY THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED EARLIER). That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day (HE DOES NOT STATE WHY LOL) *

You simply cherry-picked. You forgot to mention this:

It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

Joe, you have just illustrated how despite the proof of the earliest existing documents, some scholars because of their presuppositions will continue to deny the evidence. Of course the Catholic Encyclopedia is 100 years old but we digress…

You have provide zero evidence…

As far as Blomberg, I would like to see his proof. Well actually of course I have read his work.
The part about me doing research is kind of funny, you have to do research to earn degrees Joe, you know that.

You win; believe what ever you want to believe. This is silly…

 

[joe370]

Thanks for responding Joe. As you said, the link you provided is non-Catholic, so really doesn’t address my question. Of course many Christians (Catholic or not) believe such, which is fine. My point is that the Catholic Church does not require (nor deny) such belief. Catholics are free to belief such, or not.

I am simply trying to show,** as a catholic,** that catholic tradition affixed the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the 4 gospels, as well as the name Paul to the book of Hebrews. Those books were anonymous, so why do some non-Catholics reject all catholic tradition all the while embracing this particular tradition. That was the only point of the thread.