T
Tamsulosin
Guest
It is understood that John, the apostle, was the same person as the author of the gospel. How about Matthew?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Was Matthew , the apostle, the same person as Matthew the gospel writer in the new testament?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
kkirksp
Guest
According to the Navarre Bible commentary…
The constant Tradition of the Church from the earliest times identifies the human author of this Gospel as the apostle St Matthew, one of the first Twelve, whom Jesus himself called when he was working at his job as a “publican”, that is, as a tax collector.
Written testimonies going back as early as the beginning of the second century assure us that St Matthew was the first to write down the Gospel of Jesus Christ “in the language of the Hebrews”. We know that St Matthew wrote his (Aramaic) Gospel before the other evangelists wrote theirs; the estimated date is around the year 50. We do not know the date of composition of the Greek text, which is the one we have now. Nor do we know whether the Greek editor was St Matthew himself or some other early Christian. The most likely date for this text is around the year 70. The authenticity of the original Jewish-language text of St Matthew has never been questioned by the Church: in other words, it was always held that the apostle St Matthew is the author of the Gospel which bears his name. Similarly the Church has always regarded the Greek text as canonical.
The constant Tradition of the Church from the earliest times identifies the human author of this Gospel as the apostle St Matthew, one of the first Twelve, whom Jesus himself called when he was working at his job as a “publican”, that is, as a tax collector.
Written testimonies going back as early as the beginning of the second century assure us that St Matthew was the first to write down the Gospel of Jesus Christ “in the language of the Hebrews”. We know that St Matthew wrote his (Aramaic) Gospel before the other evangelists wrote theirs; the estimated date is around the year 50. We do not know the date of composition of the Greek text, which is the one we have now. Nor do we know whether the Greek editor was St Matthew himself or some other early Christian. The most likely date for this text is around the year 70. The authenticity of the original Jewish-language text of St Matthew has never been questioned by the Church: in other words, it was always held that the apostle St Matthew is the author of the Gospel which bears his name. Similarly the Church has always regarded the Greek text as canonical.
T
Tamsulosin
Guest
Does that mean some 17 years after Christ’s crucifiction? According to the calendar,time is counted from Jesus’ birth on. Am I correct?Our Lord was put to death at age 33.
Why would St Matthew wait that long to set on paper the events that took place, rather than when he had every detail fresh in his mind? I am answering my own question,
we will never know why.
What do we know about the other Gospel writers in the New Testament,Luke and Mark?
Why would St Matthew wait that long to set on paper the events that took place, rather than when he had every detail fresh in his mind? I am answering my own question,
we will never know why.
What do we know about the other Gospel writers in the New Testament,Luke and Mark?
P
PeterK
Guest
Sure. Why not? There is strong argument the Gospel of Matthew may have been originally composed in Hebrew. This would push it’s composition date back a bit.It is understood that John, the apostle, was the same person as the author of the gospel. How about Matthew?
Here’s some Wiki on the Hebrew Matthew to get your feet wet. While the texts referenced are medieval in date they may come from an ancient original.
P
L
Lost_Found
Guest
This thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1616869
will eventually lead you to this site
churchinhistory.org
which will indirectly answer your questions about Mark and others as well. Click on the Markan priority stuff it’s quite interesting. I haven’t read it in a while but I think it’s along the lines of the human authorship you are researching.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1616869
will eventually lead you to this site
churchinhistory.org
which will indirectly answer your questions about Mark and others as well. Click on the Markan priority stuff it’s quite interesting. I haven’t read it in a while but I think it’s along the lines of the human authorship you are researching.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Some say yes, some say no. The Catholic Church is fine with either belief.It is understood that John, the apostle, was the same person as the author of the gospel. How about Matthew?
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
The introduction to the Gospel of Matthew in the New American Bible says this:
"The majority of scholars now reject the opinion about the time of its composition", and that the Gospel of Mark “was likely the first to be written”.
They also say that author is “unknown”:
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable…The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."
We really don’t know who actually wrote the words, but it is highly unlikely that the four Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. For the first three synoptic gospels, no author is identified. For the Gospel of John, it appears that it was written by two different people. And even though it refers to an author, John, we don’t know who “John” was, or who they were.
The gospels were attributed to apostles by tradition to help give them authenticity. The writings are certainly based on oral teachings passed down from the apostles, and the sources could be the people named. But we don’t know for sure.
"The majority of scholars now reject the opinion about the time of its composition", and that the Gospel of Mark “was likely the first to be written”.
They also say that author is “unknown”:
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable…The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."
We really don’t know who actually wrote the words, but it is highly unlikely that the four Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. For the first three synoptic gospels, no author is identified. For the Gospel of John, it appears that it was written by two different people. And even though it refers to an author, John, we don’t know who “John” was, or who they were.
The gospels were attributed to apostles by tradition to help give them authenticity. The writings are certainly based on oral teachings passed down from the apostles, and the sources could be the people named. But we don’t know for sure.
T
Tamsulosin
Guest
I am taken aback by the notion of nobody knowing who wrote the gospels,on which words
is based so much of our dear religion.I have with me several books which contradict
themselves on the subject at hand.
My thought is that the natural way when relating the different events in which the apostles participated personally,would have been to use the pronouns “we” or “I” when talking about
actions in which they were present…But the gospels are written in the third person.
Unless that was the custom at that time when writing about the Lord,for respect’s sake.
There were no apostles named Luke or Mark.I would like some information about these 2 writers,if it exists.
is based so much of our dear religion.I have with me several books which contradict
themselves on the subject at hand.
My thought is that the natural way when relating the different events in which the apostles participated personally,would have been to use the pronouns “we” or “I” when talking about
actions in which they were present…But the gospels are written in the third person.
Unless that was the custom at that time when writing about the Lord,for respect’s sake.
There were no apostles named Luke or Mark.I would like some information about these 2 writers,if it exists.
J
juliamajor
Guest
The Gospels bore no authors. It is by tradition alone that we have names of authors.
R
RobbyS
Guest
The dating of the Gospels is largely a matter of speculation. Bishop Robinson kicks the question around and decides that the late dating is just a matter of opinion. IAC, the Jews were a highly literate people, and it might be that some scribe among his hearers took down notes of what Our Lord said. All we really know is that Matthew’ name was early on attached to the Gospel that was circulating and that the probable audience was Jewish, given the argument given.Does that mean some 17 years after Christ’s crucifiction? According to the calendar,time is counted from Jesus’ birth on. Am I correct?Our Lord was put to death at age 33.
Why would St Matthew wait that long to set on paper the events that took place, rather than when he had every detail fresh in his mind? I am answering my own question,
we will never know why.
What do we know about the other Gospel writers in the New Testament,Luke and Mark?
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
Here is what the New American (Catholic) bible says about Luke and Mark in the intros to each Gospel. First Mark:I am taken aback by the notion of nobody knowing who wrote the gospels,on which words
is based so much of our dear religion.I have with me several books which contradict
themselves on the subject at hand.
My thought is that the natural way when relating the different events in which the apostles participated personally,would have been to use the pronouns “we” or “I” when talking about
actions in which they were present…But the gospels are written in the third person.
Unless that was the custom at that time when writing about the Lord,for respect’s sake.
There were no apostles named Luke or Mark.I would like some information about these 2 writers,if it exists.
Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36- 39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tim 4:11; Philippians 1:24) and with Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources–miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion–so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark’s own day.
This is from the Intro to Luke:Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mark 7:3-4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mark 13:9-13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mark 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.
Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col 4:14, Philemon 24 and 2 Tim 4:11. The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Luke 1:2). His two- volume work marks him as someone who was highly literate both in the Old Testament traditions according to the Greek versions and in Hellenistic Greek writings.
Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Luke 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. Some hold that Luke used Mark only as a complementary source for rounding out the material he took from other traditions. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition.
The intros to all four Gospels also discuss the audiences they were written for, the purpose in writing them, and their varied emphasis on what Jesus said, did, and taught. Knowing more about their origins and backgrounds (at least as much as we can) can give you a deeper understanding of them.Luke’s consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Luke 23:33; // Mark 15:22; Luke 18:41; // Mark 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mark 7:1-23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Luke 2:30-32; 3:6, 38; 4:16-30; 13:28-30; 14:15-24; 17:11-19; 24:47-48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians.
You must keep in mind that the “Gospels” were transmitted orally at the beginning, primarily because the prevailing thought was that Jesus was returning very soon, so why take time to keep a record of all this. These oral traditions were written down decades after the actual events.
As you can see from reading these intros, the information is mostly “best guesses” based on several factors, as mentioned. That is why you are finding contradictory material; we just don’t know for sure. But I would say that these intros present a fairly balanced overview of current scholarly opinion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.