Trouble in my daughter's theology class

  • Thread starter Thread starter dspeach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dspeach

Guest
My daughter attends a Catholic highschool. Her theology teacher and her textbook (with imprimatur) strongly imply the following:

The Gospels were not written by the evangelists but other folks.

St John was not the beloved disciple mentioned in his Gospel.

These assertions are based on the work of “biblical scholars”.

I’d love to hear anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut to support or refute these thoughts

Thanks
 
The Gospels were not written by the evangelists but other folks

Possible. Does it really matter as long as they are the inspired Word of God?

St John was not the beloved disciple mentioned in his Gospel

Who was and how was this determined?

These assertions are based on the work of "biblical scholars"

What biblical scholars and what are their qualifications?
 
I don’t know, but I’ve always been impressed by this passage at the end of the Gospel of John, which occurs just after an incident involving Jesus, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple:
“It is this same disciple who is witness to these things; it is he who wrote them down, and his testimony, we know, is true.”
(John 21:24)
 
In my opinion, Catholic Bible scholars who teach that the Gospels are not of apostolic origin or that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles and apostolic men are out of step with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) says:
The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Dei Verbum, 18)
 
I would suggest you read these chapters to see what is said,

John 13:23
One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.

John 19:26
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,”

John 21:7
Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.

John 21:20
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”)
The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? James H. Charlesworth
Click to expand...
The Gospel of John refers five times to “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” From the second through the present century, scholars have sought to identify this “disciple,” traditionally concluding that he is the author of the Gospel adn is indeed none other than John the son fo Zebedee.
Click to expand...
In recent phases of research, however, the identification of the Beloved Disciple with John the son of Zebedee has been exposed as weak and unpersuasive. Yet, according to James Charlesworth, even this new research is problematic in that it tends to ascribe priority in discerning the meaning of the Gospel of John to documents other than the Gospel itself. Moreover, this research tends to impute historical accuracy to dicuments that were not primarily intended to present histories.
Click to expand...
Based on extensive research, then, Professor CHarlesworth has concluded that the primary rexts in the Gospel of John and the reflections of modern scholars indicate that any identification of the Beloved Disciple - whether with one of teh desciples specified in the Gospel, or with some symbolic theme - must provide credible answers to eight questions:
–Why is the Beloved Disciple described as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”?
–Why is the disciple not given a name in the Gospel?
–Why is he or she not allowed the seat of honor during the Last Supper?
–Why is the Beloved Disciple not mentioned until John 13 in which the Last Supper is not described?
–Why has the narrator placed the Beloved Disciple at the cross?
–Why does the author of John 21 feel compelled to endorse the Beloved Disciple’s credibility?
–Why did the Johannine Christians express concern or anguish at the death of the Beloved Disciple?
–Why is the Beloved Disciple and not Peter celebrated as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”?
Click to expand...
In answer to these questions Professor Charlesworth sets forth a highly original, innovative, and startling resolution to the problem.
Click to expand...
centuryone.com/8135-4.html

What is the name of the textbook?

Have you spoken directly in person with the teacher about your concerns?

Is he using hooks to get the students interrest?

I would be interrest in knowing who the scholars are too.
 
[dspeach]My daughter attends a Catholic highschool. Her theology teacher and her textbook (with imprimatur) strongly imply the following:

The Gospels were not written by the evangelists but other folks.
Click to expand...
This book obviously leans liberal even though what they are saying is possible. The gospels were written by the apostles or attributed to them, in that perhaps a protege of theirs wrote while they spoke which is essentially the same thing since part of those books being recognized by the Catholic Church is they had to be “attributed” to an apostle. What does “attributed” mean? Well, it means the apostle wrote it, as far as I am concerned.

Scholars are unsure specifically who wrote them and the Church from what I understand leaves either position open. In my opinion, those Catholics who want to see someone other than an apostle write a gospel book want to question other defined doctrines of the Church which is tantamount to decent.
St John was not the beloved disciple mentioned in his Gospel.
Click to expand...
The Church has always through time recognized St. John as the beloved apostle. The famous painting of the Last supper has St. John leaning his head on Jesus’ chest, and that reflects what the Church had always taught.
These assertions are based on the work of “biblical scholars”.
Click to expand...
Well…unfortunately they are biblical scholars but too many Catholic biblical scholars are full of decent and rebellion. Just remember that there are liberal Protestant and Catholic theologians and both are skeptical of what has been the common teaching of the Church. As we know there are a far too many priests who “are priests” but aren’t exactly faithful to Church teaching and are hoping for “change” in the Catholic Church, however they will always be disapointed because Jesus guaranteed to us via the seat of St. Peter in Mt 16:18, that…the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church!
I’d love to hear anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut to support or refute these thoughts
Click to expand...
I’d say that we can’t refute them outright because they are part of the body of speculative theology which Catholic theologians and theologians in general love to explore but to often go overboard. The problems with some of speculative theology is that it at times goes outright against Church teaching and then becomes heretical. And also remember that scholars and theologians don’t make Church teaching, the Magisterium does and they are protected by Jesus Himself.

Unfortunately for you and your daughter, I can’t say we, nor anyone can “prove” this to be outright incorrect. The best advice I could give you is to explain to your daughter that this is opinion and is opinion that the Church hasn’t commonly taught in its 2000 years of existance, nevertheless I’m sure you have already informed her. Gods blessings on you and yours. Hang in there just because others in the Catholic Church like to decent, doesn’t mean we have to!! 🙂

One final caveat. Someone referenced www.carm.org this is an anti-Catholic site run by Protestants who aspire to reformed theology and have testimonies of ex-priests, so beware before you enter in to it.
 
I think with the popularity of the “DaVinci Code” we may be more sensitive to what is being written and taught about the Gospels and therefore, may miss the point that was trying to be presented.
Personally, I think Bishopite’s post was the best and there are many other well thought out responses and I hope to build on them and not detract from from them.

As Dei Verbum clearly stated the gospel are Apostolic in origin. But many of us think that this means that they were either written by an Apostle (Matthew and John) or were practically dictated to the Author (Luke and Mark) by a particular Apostle. But biblical studies approach this from a different view point.

As I was taught, the Gospels must be understood as Faith Documents that came from the Apostolic Tradition but they are also the results of the Faith Response of a particular People or Church or Cummunity (how ever you want to call them). Just as Christ Jesus’ life and ministry and Paschal Sacrifice has impacted each of us in different ways, so to is this reflected in the Gospels. What is critical is our understanding is how these Faith Communities responded to the effect of the Jesus of history moving to the Christ of Faith. But, again, these responses were based on the teachings and evangelization from in Apostolic Tradition.

This has lead scholars (too numerous to list) to concluded that Mark and Luke were written for and from Greek speaking Gentiles, Matthew develope from a community of Jewish converts to Christianity who saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and John is really a highly developed theology a faith response most onto itself.

Also, in their studies, many scholars realized that the way the acient world wrote and attributed authorship is quite different than the way we do it. It was a completely accepted practice for a student (disciple) of a teacher to use the teacher’s name for his own writings (which makes sense when considering that what the student is writing reflect the lessons of the teacher). Or to attribute the authorship of a work that was developed from an individual who had the greatest influence on a particular group. This is also reflected in the Letters of Paul, where internal evidence such as the vocabulary and writing style indicates an author other than Paul, but clearly reflects the teachings of Paul.

To try to be more in tune with this thread, the Gospel of John may also reflect this. If the gospel was not written by John himself, it is accepted by many scholars that it was from a disciples of John and in its final edition a disciple of John. To our modern thought this would seem to say that John was not the author, but in the mind of the time of John this would not be the case and John being the true author would not be questioned. Again, from eternal evidence, even the Letters of John indicate this same process.

I guess what I am trying to add here is that we should always be aware that the way the people of the Apostolic Church, and ancient times, approached authorship is very different from our own and we should be wary of projecting modern thought into ancient times.Realizing this, I feel quite comfortable with the lessons taught by Dei Verbum on the Apostolic Origins of the Gospel.

And again, I would like to stressthat the Gospels are Faith Documents that grew out of the Faith Response of the people they developed from and were written for, all the time being guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Sir Knight said:
The Gospels were not written by the evangelists but other folks

Possible. Does it really matter as long as they are the inspired Word of God?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that’s not possible.

Sacred Tradition regards them as Apostolic, so that’s that.
 
40.png
Latin_Catholic:
Sorry, but that’s not possible.

Sacred Tradition regards them as Apostolic, so that’s that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I believe the term used is “of Apostolic origin” which leaves some wiggle room as to whether they were literally written by Apostles or not. “Of Apostolic origin” means they started with the Apostles but were not, of necessity, completed by them.
I regard them with all the respect of Apostolic authorship, prefer to think of them that way, yet recognize that the actual writing may have occured at a different time. This different time does not alter the substance of the Truth.

Phil
 
The writings of the New Testament were handed down in a way that lends itself to considerable criticism. If we had the evangelists on videotape penning the documents, then we would question that, as well.

I find it humorous up to a point, that people get sidetracked to these issues, instead of focusing on what the documents contain. Why not just accept that it’s Matthew or John that wrote the respective gospels? I’m not sure how much of the hour is left for genuine theology, if too much time is spent on this topic?
 
40.png
Bishopite:
One final caveat. Someone referenced www.carm.org this is an anti-Catholic site run by Protestants who aspire to reformed theology and have testimonies of ex-priests, so beware before you enter in to it.
Click to expand...
Thank You! There are many people who have referenced this site and I have come back to say the same thing.
This site is extremely anti-Catholic. In fact, if you don’t think like Matt Slick does you are considered NOT to be Christian - especially Catholics. He mis-quotes and twists Catholic documents to say what he wants them to say…He makes me so angry!
My advice - just stay away from that site, especially if you are not well grounded in your faith - they will try to turn you in a heartbeat!
 
TEME525,

Your response is very complete. It is human nature to want nice easy, short answers. Biblical scholarship does not lend itself to the land of ‘black and white.’ The 20 century mind and understanding of things does not always make it any easier.

I hope many will read what you wrote in such a succint post.👍 Then we can stop worrying about whether Mark personally put pen to paper and get about the business of studying the teachings of Christ, becoming a disciple and becoming Christ to the world we touch.

Also, dspeach, the imprimater means that there is nothing contrary to Chruch teaching and or understanding about or against “faith and morals” found in the material. It would not necessarily mean the Bishop agreed with each and every point contained within it. The imprimatur is somewhat like the infallability of the Pope. The Pope can be wrong, mistaken or in error [even sinful] about many things, just not when he is teaching about Faith and Morals. Impeccability and infallability are not one and the same. There are some very orthodox books without an imprimatur. Likewise, I am sure that there are some (althouh I cannot think of any of hand) books with and imprimatur that are not that great. They just do not misrepresent faith or morals.
 
I found this in my files. Unfortunately I have not sourced it. 😦

ANCIENT VIEWS ON AUTHORSHIP
We must keep in mind that the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways:

First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen.

Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author.

Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a “ghost writer” did the actual composition.

In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.
 
40.png
dspeach:
My daughter attends a Catholic highschool. Her theology teacher and her textbook (with imprimatur) strongly imply the following:

The Gospels were not written by the evangelists but other folks.

St John was not the beloved disciple mentioned in his Gospel.

These assertions are based on the work of “biblical scholars”.

I’d love to hear anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut to support or refute these thoughts

Thanks
Click to expand...

Those two positions are perfectly orthodox, and neither is particularly radical; both are accepted positions among scholars, the first probably more widely than the second.​

The gospels themselves are the sources for many of the objections to the traditional authorships: the geography of Jesus’ travels in Mark is surprising for an author who heard of them from one of Jesus’s companions.

These positions come as a shock only if one has never heard of them, and has taken for granted a more conservative position. As with most things, indeed.

Someone has to do the work of studying the Bible in detail - Bible scholars are as important to society as (say) plumbers or surgeons: none of these groups is omniscient, but that doesn’t make them into lying or useless morons either 🙂 - and it is good morals and fair dealing (to say nothing of Christian attitudes) to begin by assuming the best, rather than the worst, about people, rathe than casting them into the outer darkness merely because they suggest something unfamiliar. ##
 
Any time one encounters the phrase “Bible scholars agree that…”, it’s a sure sign that what follows is likely to be bunk.
When one instead encounters:“Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium say that…” - it’s a sure sign that what follows is trustworthy and true.

What “most bible scholars think” and what Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium show are most often in diametric opposition.
 
I expect that when someone vaguely says that Bible scholars say such and such a thing, that generally they are speaking of Protestant Biblical scholars. These are hardly the sort of authorities to refer to when speaking to Catholics. I expect that you would find this out if you asked such a speaker if he is speaking of Catholic scholars.
 
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
Code: 
**[The Gospels are Historical](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)**
CHAPTER I
Code: 
              **INTRODUCTION**

              For nearly 2000 years Christians have maintained that the Apostles Matthew and John (eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ) and Mark and Luke (secretaries to Peter and Paul) composed the four Gospels. Today this historical basis of Christianity is widely denied, not only by non-Christians, but also by some within the Christian community.

   When at parish level speakers are asked to provide solid reasons for this change, the usual replies are: `The experts say so`, or `everyone agrees`. I therefore felt the need to make a personal investigation.

   This involved collecting the external evidence (what the early historians wrote) and the internal evidence (modern literary analysis of the texts). This booklet contains the result of that research.

   The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship.

   There are three main schools of thought:

   ~ The Jerome Tradition (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) ~

   ~ The Markan priority theory (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)~

   ~ The Clementine Tradition (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) ~


THE CLEMENTINE                 TRADITION                 

is in full accord                 with:

                  The earliest Christian                 historians

                  Modern literary                 analysis

                  The doctrine of                 the church

                  Recent Church                 statements



                  The following pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church.
more…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top