Were the four Gospels actually written by Matthew, Mark...etc?

[blaskoman]

Some professor of Divinity has a book out claiming that the Gospels were not in fact written by Matthew, Mark Luke, or John…see following youtube video…
youtube.com/watch?v=KmM18riY2po (hope the link works)
This professor is a self professed agnostic, and of course he is giving an interview on The Young Turks, comprised of commentators who are also non-believers, and always putting down Christianity.

 

[patrick457]

Some professor of Divinity has a book out claiming that the Gospels were not in fact written by Matthew, Mark Luke, or John…see following youtube video…
youtube.com/watch?v=KmM18riY2po (hope the link works)
This professor is a self professed agnostic, and of course he is giving an interview on The Young Turks, comprised of commentators who are also non-believers, and always putting down Christianity.

Actually, the whole “the Gospels are not written by Matthew or Mark or Luke or John” thing is widespread nowadays…even among a few believers. So this professor is not saying something new - he’s just recycling.

 

[Zundrah]

Actually, the whole “the Gospels are not written by Matthew or Mark or Luke or John” thing is widespread nowadays…even among a few believers. So this professor is not saying something new - he’s just recycling.

Please listen to this…
A friend of mine who is a Mormon missionary said this to me; “Baptist John wrote revelation first, but bible schollars think that he wrote it last!”
She then said that the bible is in the wrong order and not kept in the right order by dates of time.
Now I know you’re going to say “she’s mormon so just ignore her”, but she also said that the catholic church believe that they can administrate the kingdom. (I personally strongly dissagree with that) She is obviously very anti - catholic. But seriously, is there any truth in the revelation theory she has? If you read the beginning, then you will see that it could be true… Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?

 

[derekohachey]

If John the Baptist wrote Revelation then he must have already been ressurected. Otherwise he would have been one of those souls in Heaven because he was beheaded before Christ was Crucified.

Generally speaking, the books in the Bible are not all put in chronological order.

Regarding the four Gospels, I am not a historian, so I will yield the floor to someone more informed than I.

God Bless,
Derek

 

[patrick457]

Please listen to this…
A friend of mine who is a Mormon missionary said this to me; “Baptist John wrote revelation first, but bible schollars think that he wrote it last!”
She then said that the bible is in the wrong order and not kept in the right order by dates of time.
Now I know you’re going to say “she’s mormon so just ignore her”, but she also said that the catholic church believe that they can administrate the kingdom. (I personally strongly dissagree with that) She is obviously very anti - catholic. But seriously, is there any truth in the revelation theory she has? If you read the beginning, then you will see that it could be true… Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?

There is a grain of truth to her statement. While many scholars now think that Revelation was written by ‘John’ - I hope that by “Baptist John”, she does not mean John the Baptist - around the end of the reign of the emperor Domitian (95-96 AD), others contend with this and propose an earlier date, such as at the end of the reign of Nero (68-69 AD) or at the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD). The 4th-century Church father St. Epiphanius of Salamis preferred the Claudius dating, while those who prefer to date it under Domitian use the testimony of St. Irenaeus of Lyon in the 2nd century (a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn is said to have been a disciple of John the Evangelist himself) for this:

…We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign…

Adversus Haereses, 5.30.3

Still others distinguish two dates: publication of the work (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian, 69-79 AD).

And yes, it is probable that the Biblical books are not written in the order that they are arranged now in our Bibles. For example, many scholars today date some of the epistles of St. Paul (say, Romans or Philippians) to be the oldest portions of the New Testament, being dated somewhere around the 50s AD. The Gospels and Acts, meanwhile, are thought to have been written in a period between c. 60 AD-late 90s AD, though of course, some would push for an even earlier date (c. 50 AD at the earliest, contemporary with the earliest of the Pauline epistles).

 

[Zundrah]

There is a grain of truth to her statement. While many scholars now think that Revelation was written by ‘John’ - I hope that by “Baptist John”, she does not mean John the Baptist - around the end of the reign of the emperor Domitian (95-96 AD), others contend with this and propose an earlier date, such as at the end of the reign of Nero (68-69 AD) or at the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD). The 4th-century Church father St. Epiphanius of Salamis preferred the Claudius dating, while those who prefer to date it under Domitian use the testimony of St. Irenaeus of Lyon in the 2nd century (a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn is said to have been a disciple of John the Evangelist himself) for this:

…We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign…

Adversus Haereses, 5.30.3

Still others distinguish two dates: publication of the work (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian, 69-79 AD).

And yes, it is probable that the Biblical books are not written in the order that they are arranged now in our Bibles. For example, many scholars today date some of the epistles of St. Paul (say, Romans or Philippians) to be the oldest portions of the New Testament, being dated somewhere around the 50s AD. The Gospels and Acts, meanwhile, are thought to have been written in a period between c. 60 AD-late 90s AD, though of course, some would push for an even earlier date (c. 50 AD at the earliest, contemporary with the earliest of the Pauline epistles).

But she also said that the mormon church believe that JOHN NEVER DIED!?

 

[Nikolaj]

The Gospel of Matthew as we know it was almost certainly not written by Matthew the Apostle, since it was based on the Gospel of Mark. It is quite unthinkable that Matthew the eyewitness would base his gospel on that of Mark the second-hand-witness (could be the other way round though, if you believe Matthew to be older than Mark, but IMO there are very strong reasons to believe that Mark is the oldest Gospel). But the author of Matthew may have used some other material for his Gospel that originated with Matthew the Apostle – that would explain the title.

In the case of the Gospel of John and the other books attributed to “John” it’s important to distinguish between at least three Johns: John the Baptist who of course did not write any of the books in the New Testament, since he died already during Jesus’ earthly ministry; John the Apostle who probably didn’t write any of the books of the New Testament, although he may have written the Revelation; and John the Presbyter who was, like John the Apostle, a personal disciple of Jesus (according to the Apostolic Father Papias and others) and who may have written the Gospel of John, referring to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, and the three epistles of John, referring to himself in the second and third epistle as “the Presbyter”.

As regards Mark and Luke, I personally don’t see any great problems in believing that they were indeed written by Mark the disciple of Peter and Luke the psysician and companion of Paul. Yet there are some more critical scholars who do see a problem in that. I think all positions on these matters can be found among Catholic, Protestant and other scholars alike.

 

[Drawmack]

Please listen to this…
A friend of mine who is a Mormon missionary said this to me; “Baptist John wrote revelation first, but bible schollars think that he wrote it last!”
She then said that the bible is in the wrong order and not kept in the right order by dates of time.
Now I know you’re going to say “she’s mormon so just ignore her”, but she also said that the catholic church believe that they can administrate the kingdom. (I personally strongly dissagree with that) She is obviously very anti - catholic. But seriously, is there any truth in the revelation theory she has? If you read the beginning, then you will see that it could be true… Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Avoiding the put off of “she’s a Mormon – ignore her” I’ll say something similar. My brother is a Mormon, a very devout one. Having someone so close to me be Mormon allows me to engage in open dialogue about the differences between the two faiths at a level I would probably otherwise not be capable of because no matter what is said we both know that the other means no disrespect and so we can take things in stride. I will tell you this, he has told me so much misinformation that I had to research to clear up that I would not take anything a Mormon says as accurate without double checking it. However, I look at the information he gives me as the chance for me to learn more about my own faith because he gives me ideas for what to look into. The most recent trek he has sent me on involves the council of Nicaea, which he claimed was a joint council between Pagans and Christians. Now I know that this is incorrect and I am learning about the council well enough to explain it to others. So, if a Mormon, or for that matter anyone, tells you something about the faith look it up and check it. As for the Gospels, the introductory commentaries in your Bible should contain this information if your Bible has the imprimatur.

 

[Drawmack]

But she also said that the mormon church believe that JOHN NEVER DIED!?

I believe the Mormon Church believes something along the lines of John being assumed. It has to do with the emphasis they put on Baptism. My understanding is that they believe Jesus’ baptism had something to do with his divinity. I could have this wrong, and I’ll double check with my brother, but I believe they teach that he was not born God but became God through his baptism.

 

[patrick457]

But she also said that the mormon church believe that JOHN NEVER DIED!?

Apparently, they base this belief on John 21:21-24, as well as passages on the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:4-6) and the Doctrine and Covenants (Section 7:1-3).

It might bear mentioning, as an aside that some versions of the apocryphal Acts of John (c. 2nd century AD) has John disappearing after being buried by his disciples (in place of the more simple ending that has John “giving up his spirit” rejoicing present in other versions). One version has the disciples finding only his sandals near his grave and the earth moving (“springing up like a well”), being stirred up by John’s breathing - St. Augustine also reports about this belief on his time. This early Christian tradition was apparently also based on John 21:21-24.

After He said this, Jesus said to Peter, “Follow me.” Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following - who had leaned back against His breast at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who is going to hand you over?” So when Peter saw him he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!”

So the word went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

John 21:19-24

 

[4everjustjesus]

Each of the four gospels are that person’s “way of telling the story.” So Mark’s gospel, may not necessarily have been put down on parchment by Mark, but maybe by one of Mark’s disciples or friends. It is however, Jesus’ story, in St. Mark’s words. Of course, there is only one [story], and ALL of the disciples were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

This is my first time, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong about anything!

GOD BLESS!

 

[David_Zampino]

Some professor of Divinity has a book out claiming that the Gospels were not in fact written by Matthew, Mark Luke, or John…see following youtube video…
youtube.com/watch?v=KmM18riY2po (hope the link works)
This professor is a self professed agnostic, and of course he is giving an interview on The Young Turks, comprised of commentators who are also non-believers, and always putting down Christianity.

Many, if not most Christians (myself included) would readily accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did write (dictate, preach, teach, etc.) their Gospel accounts. The Early Church Fathers provide ample and consistent testimony on this point.

THIS BEING SAID . . .

It is also quite possible, even probable, that there was some editing going on within the first couple of generations after Jesus. Many of the earliest extant manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel don’t include the “long ending” (last dozen verses or so). Likewise, John’s Gospel shows signs of an editing process in its two endings. Also likewise, the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery has been placed (depending on the manuscript) in both Luke’s Gospel and John’s Gospel.

None of this would contradict either the inspired nature of the books, nor their canonical status.

 

[Axion]

The whole idea that the Gospels weren’t written by the people they said they were by, is a THEORY first developed by a group of German Liberal protestant scholars in the later 1800s. They developed what they called “Higher Biblical Criticism” - which meant trying to deconstruct the Bible by looking at internal evidence, writing styles etc. They cncluded that the Bible is a mish mash of stray writings by various unknown people, patched together by unknown editors.

Unfortunately their theories were soon taken up as fact by Liberal scholars - and taught in theological schools and universities. In this way the theories of HBC have now become a new orthodoxy with all except conservative Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants.

The important thing to say about HBC is that

1. These people proved nothing. Everything they said is just based on supposition.
2. Many of the suppositions were based on the ASSUMPTION that miracles and prophecies could not be genuine. Therefore if a gospel recorded Jesus’s prophecy of the destruction of the temple, the “critics” declared that this meant that the gospel was written AFTER the destruction of 70 AD - since prophecy could not be true. By such circular reasoning we come to the accepted theories that the Gospels were written decades if not hundreds of years later - and therefore not by the recorded authors.
3. However, not only do ancient traditions name the authors, but internal evidence shows that the Gospels are earlier. Luke records many events in Acts in the First Person, indicating that he was there. Acts was written AFTER the gospel of Luke. However Acts ends abruptly with the first arrest of St Paul in Rome. It does not mention the crucial events of Paul (and Peter’s) trial and execution in Rome in the mid 60’s AD. It is impossible to conceive that if Acts was written later, that these events would not be mentioned in the book - therefore, we can be fairly certain that Luke and Acts were written very early on, by their named author. Ifn Luke copied some material from Mark or Matthew , then these must be even earlier - and the main theory of the Higher Biblical Critics is wrong.

 

[wasmit]

Some professor of Divinity has a book out claiming that the Gospels were not in fact written by Matthew, Mark Luke, or John…see following youtube video…
youtube.com/watch?v=KmM18riY2po (hope the link works)
This professor is a self professed agnostic, and of course he is giving an interview on The Young Turks, comprised of commentators who are also non-believers, and always putting down Christianity.

The majority scholarly opinion is that the four gospel writers are unknown/anonymous.

details here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

 

[buffalo]

The Authors of the Gospels

…
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.

 

[wasmit]

The Gospel of Matthew as we know it was almost certainly not written by Matthew the Apostle, since it was based on the Gospel of Mark. It is quite unthinkable that Matthew the eyewitness would base his gospel on that of Mark the second-hand-witness (could be the other way round though, if you believe Matthew to be older than Mark, but IMO there are very strong reasons to believe that Mark is the oldest Gospel) But the author of Matthew may have used some other material for his Gospel that originated with Matthew the Apostle – that would explain the title.
.

this is very interesting to me, can you please elaborate?

 

[David_Zampino]

The majority scholarly opinion is that the four gospel writers are unknown/anonymous.

details here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

For such a subject as this, wikipedia is not a reliable source.

 

[Erich]

The Gospel of Matthew as we know it was almost certainly not written by Matthew the Apostle, since it was based on the Gospel of Mark. It is quite unthinkable that Matthew the eyewitness would base his gospel on that of Mark the second-hand-witness (could be the other way round though, if you believe Matthew to be older than Mark, but IMO there are very strong reasons to believe that Mark is the oldest Gospel).

The theory that Mark wrote his gospel first (drawing from the previously-unknown/unheard of “Q” source), with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck’s anti-Catholic ‘Kulturkampf’ policy.

Someone earlier posted a link to “The Authors of the Gospels” which is an excellent reference. Here is a more concise summary.

 

[David_Zampino]

The Authors of the Gospels

…
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.

Who is Dennis Barton?

What is “churchinhistory.org”?

What relationship does this organization have to the Church?

No disrespect intended, but I’m sorry, this site raises quite a few questions with me.

 

[buffalo]

Who is Dennis Barton?

What is “churchinhistory.org”?

What relationship does this organization have to the Church?

No disrespect intended, but I’m sorry, this site raises quite a few questions with me.

As it should - but you should read it together with the vast footnotes.

Before St Jerome the Authors were listed in this order - Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.

The Authors were Matthew and John. Luke and Mark wrote on behalf of St Peter and