When were the Gospels written? And by whom?

[chris1888]

Hi guys, I hope this is the right section for my question. I was speaking with someone at my university the other day who made quite a few claims that threw me a little. Basically he said that the Gospels were not written until at least 40-100 years after Jesus, and that they were definitley NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Furthermore, he said that in early Christianity there were numerous other Gospels (the so-called Gnostic gospels) that were not included in the Bible and hidden by the Church because they showed that Jesus was just an ordinary man, a prophet and nothing else. He then started bringing up all the Da Vinci Code nonsense, but also claimed that things such as the Resurection, Trinity, Christmas etc were just incorporated from older religions and added to Christianity.

To be honest Ive heard stuff like that before but not so much about the Gospels and their authors, and I didnt really know what to say. Anyone got any explanations or information on this as my knowledge in this area is a bit sketchy! Thanks!

God Bless.

 

[Dameedna]

There are several other gospels out there.

A group of individuals(self-appointed) got together and decided which texts would be the “official” texts of christianity. Before that there were hundreds of christian sects running around with their own documents.

The Gospel of Thomas is the most prevalent and definately well worth the read. It has less of the hell-fire and brimestone so often attributed to christianity, and seems to be a more honest version of Jesus teachings, without the attempts to appeal to phrophecies and different types of audiences(like the current gospels do)

At the end of the day, many people had many ideas about who christ was. A group of people decided to make it official and chose for christianity, what it would follow from that point onward.

It’s up to you to decide wether they got it right

 

[nicolep]

It is true that the gospels were not written down until several years after Jesus was resurrected. Before that they were passed orally. The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, has always maintained that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The Church decided which books to put in the bible. The books that were picked were done so by meeting certain criteria. One being that the gospel writer witnessed the events (except for Luke, all did…Luke however did extensive study to form his gospel) and another being that they could verify that the author could be readily identified. I’m sure there are other factors that figured into this theory.

The Da Vinci Code defense is weak and transparent in my opinion. There are millions of people walking around swearing everything in it is true. I’m putting my trust in a 2,000 year Tradition and the Church instituted by Christ. Whenever someone brings up The Da Vinci Code, I say something along the lines of, “If you want to believe a movie/book over the Church that is your right. I choose the Church as opposed to an anti-Catholic author who left the one, true Church.” Then I just don’t say much else about it. The people who believe this piece of fiction as fact, aren’t going to be convinced otherwise except for by the grace of God.

 

[nicolep]

Here’s a link that will take you to some information on the Holy Bible.

scborromeo.org/truth/b3.htm

 

[Dameedna]

The Church decided which books to put in the bible. The books that were picked were done so by meeting certain criteria. One being that the gospel writer witnessed the events (except for Luke, all did…Luke however did extensive study to form his gospel) and another being that they could verify that the author could be readily identified. I’m sure there are other factors that figured into this theory.

The gospels were not written by people who witnessed the events. (A simple litmus test, as to the contradictions within them shows this). There isn’t a biblical scholar who is respected within the scholar community that supports that notion. The belief they are first hand accounts, is a result of people needing their proof…in a world that requires proof. “They wrote it because they saw it”…kind of proof.

The writers of the gospels, used 2nd hand and 3rd hand accounts and wrote them in accordance with what filled the needs of the audience at the time. What you learn in church, is not, what you learn when you study theology.

If they were first hand witnesses, they would have done a much better and more consistant job of writing it all down. The Jew’s, were if not anything else very good at writing down the details.

The Da Vinci Code defense is weak and transparent in my opinion.

The Da Vinci Code, suprisingly affected many people. It is the same old conspiracy nonsense in the same old genre.

What is astounding , is how it did actually make so many people question. Had they NEVER questioned the validity of what they had been taught? It didn’t affect me one little bit, and I found it quite boring.

The Da Vinci code is fiction, so you should treat it as such.

Yes…there are other gospels, and Yes the official books of the bible were chosen by a group of people AND YES, they are
2nd/3rd hand accounts of an historical event, hence their discrepancies.(You can find a lot of information on this, it isn’t difficult to find)

The Da Vinci code…is a bit of fun. Don’t take it too seriously

 

[mpernot]

Those “self-appointed” people that decided what books were the inspired word of God were actually appointed by God. At the council of Hippo in N. Africa (393), early Catholic bishops decided which books were the inspired word of God. These bishops, the lineage of their offices being traceable to the original 12 apostles via apostolic succession, were ordained with the authority of Jesus Christ. Their decision at Hippo on the composition of Sacred Scripture was upheld by a subsequent synod at Carthage (397), which was then approved by by pope. The pope and bishops in union with him were able to infallibly determine the inspired word of God (they were teaching a topic of faith and morals, the condition to which infallibility applies) because of the authority given to them by Jesus. It wasn’t an arbritrary opinion of a few ordinary folks.

Likewise, it is certainly fine to read other works like the gospel of St. Thomas, but you must know they are not the inspired word of God and shouldn’t be viewed as such.

As to the questions by the OP, I have heard that the Gospels were not written until after the death of Jesus. I know John’s was the last one to be written, as he was the youngest of the gospel writers and waited until later in life to write it, but I thought he actually wrote his. I had heard that one or more gospels were written by others, but I believe the others acted as scribes, writing what the gospel “writer” said. I don’t know enough to say for sure; I’d be interested in a more knowledgable viewpont as well. Folks like Fr. Mitch Pacwa are experts in this realm.

 

[Dameedna]

Those “self-appointed” people that decided what books were the inspired word of God were actually appointed by God. At the council of Hippo in N. Africa (393), early Catholic bishops decided which books were the inspired word of God. These bishops, the lineage of their offices being traceable to the original 12 apostles via apostolic succession, were ordained with the authority of Jesus Christ. Their decision at Hippo on the composition of Sacred Scripture was upheld by a subsequent synod at Carthage (397), which was then approved by by pope. The pope and bishops in union with him were able to infallibly determine the inspired word of God (they were teaching a topic of faith and morals, the condition to which infallibility applies) because of the authority given to them by Jesus. It wasn’t an arbritrary opinion of a few ordinary folks.

In other words…a group of human beings decided they were appointed by god.

These humans who decided they were appointed by god, determined which books were appointed by God.

These self-appointed Bishops, decided they had a lineage back to Jesus, and because they made this decision about their lineage, their views on Jesus were therefore true.

hmmmm…

The books were inspired by some amazing events, but they were ultimately written by humans, and there were quite a number of said books written during that time that described Jesus life and effect on humanity. A group of people decided they had the truth and incorporated them into a total complete Bible.

It really is up to you, as to wether or not you believe the word of man, 2000 years ago. What is much more complex, is wether or not you believe we have interpreted that word correctly.

Most modern scholars see the bible for what it is, a story created by man that was driven by God.

I trust their inspiration, but humans were as failable back then, as man is today, so no…I do not trust any “truth” despite what it may cost me in comfort level.

I’m more interested in actual truth, than believed truth.

 

[mpernot]

I’m more interested in actual truth, than believed truth.

When you get down to it everything boils down to authority. You don’t believe that the pope and bishops in union with him have the authority of God passed on to them through Jesus. Consequently, you don’t believe that they had any more authority to decide what was the inspired word of God than you or I. You are consistent here, as I wouldn’t expect you to believe in something without believing that its source had authority.

On the flip side, I don’t believe your arguments because I don’t believe in the authority that backs it up (your opinion). I’ll take the 2000 year old, unbroken line of authority in the Catholic church over any opinion because utlimately, to believe in something you have to believe in the authority which it came from.

By the way, Sacred Scripture backs me up on this. More importantly, Sacred Scripture backs up my church on this.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

There are several other gospels out there.

A group of individuals(self-appointed) got together and decided which texts would be the “official” texts of christianity. Before that there were hundreds of christian sects running around with their own documents.

The Gospel of Thomas is the most prevalent and definately well worth the read. It has less of the hell-fire and brimestone so often attributed to christianity, and seems to be a more honest version of Jesus teachings, without the attempts to appeal to phrophecies and different types of audiences(like the current gospels do)

At the end of the day, many people had many ideas about who christ was. A group of people decided to make it official and chose for christianity, what it would follow from that point onward.

It’s up to you to decide wether they got it right

The Gospel of Thomas isn’t authentic. It’s an early Gnostic heresy. You can find the text here. users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/Trans.htm

It’s not even a Gospel, in any reasonable sense of that term. A Gospel is an account of the life of Jesus (including His teachings). This is to a Gospel what 114 fortune cookies are to a Book.

**Why it’s appealing:
**It’s got a fair number of legitimate Biblical allusions (Sayings 5, 16, 33, 39, 55, and 101 seem to allude to St. Matthew’s Gospel). It mixes with this a lot of self-empowerment stuff about God being everywhere and inside of us. It sounds a lot like modern secular liberalism, so people who want a vague sense of “spirituality” without any of the demands of actual morality or religion can claim this. Hence the lack of “hellfire and brimstone” - it’s not really saying anything more intellectually or spiritually rigorous than “be nice!”

Some of the silliest things GoT says:

**Saying 7: **Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”

**Saying 37: **His disciples said, “When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?”
Jesus said, “When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.”

And of course, Saying 114 (of dubious origin), about how women can’t enter Heaven.

Additionally, as you said, it doesn’t even pretend to match up with Old Testament prophesy. So to accept Gnosticism, you’d have to reject the faith of the Old Testament first. Which means it’s not Judeo-Christian in any reasonable sense of the term.

What both sides agree upon:
First, Jesus chose Disciples, and left them in a position of authority. In the Bible, we see it in Mark 3:13-19, for example, while in GoT, it’s in sayings
Individual disciples are referenced in sayings 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 34, 37, etc.

Second, that authority is tied with this disciples. After all, it’s why the “gospel” claims to be by St. Thomas.

Third, one of the Disciples was left as leader of the others, as a final earthly authority for disputes, etc. Here, there’s a disagreement. Catholics believe it was St. Peter (Matthew 16:17-19, evidenced in Acts 2, as well as elsewhere). Gnostics rely on the super-bizarre saying 12:

Saying 12: The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?”
Jesus said to them, “No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

Dameedna, do you really believe that this is a “more honest version of Jesus’ teachings”? Does the concept of the Earth being created for James have any basis in the Old Testament, logic, or any human sense of justice?
**
Why this is important:**
Authority is tied to the Disciples. The Gnostics knew this, and tried to tie their “gospel” to the Twelve. But as sayings one and two make clear, the goal of Gnosticism wasn’t universal salvation (attained by those who believe), but acquiring secret knowledge to have power over other people. The Gnostic message is much closer to the goal of the devil in the Garden of Eden.

 

[buffalo]

The ChurchinHistory Information Centre
www.churchinhistory.org
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

 

[Belloc_Fan]

In other words…a group of human beings decided they were appointed by god.

These humans who decided they were appointed by god, determined which books were appointed by God.

No, both the Gnostics and the Christians acknowledged that Jesus put Twelve Disciples in place. Those Disciples appointed deacons and presbyters, as well as successors. The various letters that would later form the New Testament all speak to this as a historical fact (cf. Acts 1:12-23, Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5 - this is nowhere near a comprehensive list). These successors, who could trace, by the ceremony of laying of hands, a specific trail, person by person, back to one of the Twelve or Paul (who was himself connected back to the Twelve via a Damascus Christian named Ananias: cf. Acts 9:17-19).

These self-appointed Bishops, decided they had a lineage back to Jesus, and because they made this decision about their lineage, their views on Jesus were therefore true.

They didn’t “decide” they had a lineage back to Jesus. They could literally trace, person to person, what the lineage was. St. Irenaeus does just this (using the pope as an example) in Against Heresies (en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/IRENAEUS/Against_Heresies:_Book_III/Chapter_III.)). I don’t “decide” I’m my grandfather’s grandchild.

I trust their inspiration, but humans were as failable back then, as man is today, so no…I do not trust any “truth” despite what it may cost me in comfort level.
I’m more interested in actual truth, than believed truth.

If they’re inspired by God, why wouldn’t you trust that He could preserve the texts? Even the Old Testament speaks to the preservation of the Word - if God is powerful enough to create the world, and communicate to us, why isn’t He powerful enough to preserve that communication through time immemorial? (Note: I’m not saying you have to believe in verbal inspiration of Scripture, but not believing in preservation from error undermines your professed belief in inspiration in any form)

 

[Kathy_Ostrander]

Hi guys, I hope this is the right section for my question. I was speaking with someone at my university the other day who made quite a few claims that threw me a little. Basically he said that the Gospels were not written until at least 40-100 years after Jesus, and that they were definitley NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Furthermore, he said that in early Christianity there were numerous other Gospels (the so-called Gnostic gospels) that were not included in the Bible and hidden by the Church because they showed that Jesus was just an ordinary man, a prophet and nothing else. He then started bringing up all the Da Vinci Code nonsense, but also claimed that things such as the Resurection, Trinity, Christmas etc were just incorporated from older religions and added to Christianity.

To be honest Ive heard stuff like that before but not so much about the Gospels and their authors, and I didnt really know what to say. Anyone got any explanations or information on this as my knowledge in this area is a bit sketchy! Thanks!

God Bless.

The original gospels, the ones included in the Bible, were directly related by one of the gospel writers, or one of their direct students. The Gnostic gospels have been proven by Bible scholars to have been written many years later. One proof of the later date is that there are historical events discussed in these gospels that place them many years, even centuries later than the originals. It is believed that when the gnostics wanted to have a stronger defense of their faith they would possibly come up with a new gospel and attribute one of Jesus’ followers as the writer. When scrutinized, these gospels are very anti Bible as well as anti Jesus, and anti Catholic.
I hope you will continue to research your question and it will help you in your faith journey. Kathy Ostrander

 

[Genesis315]

The people who claim that the Gospels were not written by the traditional authors claim that because they date the Gospels in an atheistical manner. Basically, they work from the premise that none of the prophecies could be authentic, so they had to have been written after the prophecied event took place.
Dei Verbum:

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.(1)

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven
2. cf. St. Irenaeus, “Against Heretics” III, 11

The citation is especially telling as to this teaching. Here is what is cited:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

That should help as to the Catholic position

 

[Dameedna]

No, both the Gnostics and the Christians acknowledged that Jesus put Twelve Disciples in place.

I’ll stop right here.

The 12 disciples, and their names are different throughout the gospels. The 4 gospels “disagree” as to the names of the disciples. The modern scholars have accepted this, and are trying to interpret what it means.

It is usually referred to, NOT as human beings, but as the 12 tribes of Israel. It’s not a personal reference at all.

A person in this day and age, simply cannot make a statment(My religion comes from the original disciples, of god) and get away with it.

Cheers

 

[foundthelight]

I’ll stop right here.

The 12 disciples, and their names are different throughout the gospels. The 4 gospels “disagree” as to the names of the disciples. The modern scholars have accepted this, and are trying to interpret what it means.

It is usually referred to, NOT as human beings, but as the 12 tribes of Israel. It’s not a personal reference at all.

A person in this day and age, simply cannot make a statment(My religion comes from the original disciples, of god) and get away with it.

Cheers

Hogwash! No real biblical scholar takes the disciples as a reference to the 12 tribes. Where did you get such dis-information? Perhaps from a Watchtower magazine?

 

[nicolep]

The gospels were not written by people who witnessed the events. (A simple litmus test, as to the contradictions within them shows this). There isn’t a biblical scholar who is respected within the scholar community that supports that notion. The belief they are first hand accounts, is a result of people needing their proof…in a world that requires proof. “They wrote it because they saw it”…kind of proof.

The writers of the gospels, used 2nd hand and 3rd hand accounts and wrote them in accordance with what filled the needs of the audience at the time. What you learn in church, is not, what you learn when you study theology.

If they were first hand witnesses, they would have done a much better and more consistant job of writing it all down. The Jew’s, were if not anything else very good at writing down the details.

The Da Vinci Code, suprisingly affected many people. It is the same old conspiracy nonsense in the same old genre.

What is astounding , is how it did actually make so many people question. Had they NEVER questioned the validity of what they had been taught? It didn’t affect me one little bit, and I found it quite boring.

The Da Vinci code is fiction, so you should treat it as such.

Yes…there are other gospels, and Yes the official books of the bible were chosen by a group of people AND YES, they are
2nd/3rd hand accounts of an historical event, hence their discrepancies.(You can find a lot of information on this, it isn’t difficult to find)

The Da Vinci code…is a bit of fun. Don’t take it too seriously

I don’t take The Da Vinci Code too seriously and even stated that it was fiction. However, there are people who take it as absolute truth and I choose not to speak with them about it.

As far as the writers being witnesses, I was confusing that with the apostle’s or being close to an apostle.

Weren’t Matthew, Mark and John apostle’s? They would have witnessed a large part of what went on and learned the rest from first hand accounts? Who wrote their gospel based on second and third hand accounts? I’ll be interested to hear that from a Catholic source. All others are biased and I won’t read them anyway.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t take The Da Vinci Code too seriously and even stated that it was fiction. However, there are people who take it as absolute truth and I choose not to speak with them about it.

As far as the writers being witnesses, I was confusing that with the apostle’s or being close to an apostle.

Weren’t Matthew, Mark and John apostle’s? They would have witnessed a large part of what went on and learned the rest from first hand accounts? Who wrote their gospel based on second and third hand accounts? I’ll be interested to hear that from a Catholic source. All others are biased and I won’t read them anyway.

see post #10 - it will explain everything

 

[nicolep]

see post #10 - it will explain everything

Thanks…I hadn’t had a chance to read that yet though I did see the post.

 

[runandsew]

I personally believe these claims are from the modernist who do not believe in the supernatural and miracles.
They can’t believe that the prophesies of the destruction of the temple which occurred in 70 AD could have been predicted in such detain by Jesus some 40 years before. Therefore the Gospels must have been written after that point. There is also the view that some of the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament seem to point to a structured church, and since they don’t believe that Jesus established a visible church, this must have been written or inserted later, when a visible church arose despite Jesus’ wishes just to establish a movement.

In other words, because the New Testament contains information that in contrary to their beliefs, some people discredit the early writing by the Apostles of the Gospel and the rest of the New Testament. They have a view in their mind of the early church, and they won’t let even the bible change their mind, since they think they are right.

Here is the link to Rev Henry Graham’s book on the bible:

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church

by The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I’ll stop right here.

The 12 disciples, and their names are different throughout the gospels. The 4 gospels “disagree” as to the names of the disciples. The modern scholars have accepted this, and are trying to interpret what it means.

“Modern scholars” shouldn’t be too awfully confused about it, if they’ve read a whole lot. Nicknames and family names were used in addition to surnames to distinguish between people of the same name. Sometimes, these names don’t make sense to us as outsiders: in Spanish, Chuy is a nickname for Jesus, Pepe for Jose, and so on - it’s a comparable phenomenon. Amongst Jesus’ disciples, two people were named Simon, two were named James, and two were named Judas - these ones all have nicknames recorded.

Here’s the full list (to the best of my knowledge) of the Apostles:
• Simon Peter: Simon is his birth name. He is also known as “Simon, bar Jonah” (Simon, son of Jonah). Cephas (“Rock”) is the name given him by Christ when he is commissioned with running the earthly Church. Peter is the Greek translation of Cephas.
• Andrew: Simon Peter’s brother.
• James: Son of Zebedee. One of the “Boanerges” (Sons of Thunder). Brother of John.
• John: Son of Zebedee. One of the “Boanerges” (Sons of Thunder). Brother of James.
• Philip
• Bartholomew: His given name was Nathanael - “Bartholomew” means “Son of Tholomew.”
• **Thomas Didymus: **Means “Thomas the twin.” John uses this nickname for him on a few occassions, as “Thomas, called Didymus” (emphasizing that it’s a nickname).
• Matthew: Mark calls him “Levi” in Mark 2, but then Matthew in Mark 3. Pretty obviously a nickname. The parallel accounts of Mark 2’s “Call of Levi” all refer to Matthew by name, and mention his being a tax collector. Levi means
• James, son of Alphaeus
• Judas, son of James: The most obvious candidate for a nickname, since the other disciple by that name soiled the name pretty thoroughly. John calls him “Judas, not Iscariot,” but that’s an awkward moniker: Matthew and Mark call him Lebbaeus. His surname is Thaddaeus.
• Simon the Zealot: Also called Simon the Cananaean, but that term means the same thing.
• Judas Iscariot

Assuming that every time these nicknames are used implies a different person is being referred to is silly. It would be like assuming that an article referring to “W.,” “Bush,” “George,” and “Mr. President” was “contradictory.” It’s poor scholarship. The early Church uniformly understood who was being referred to.

It is usually referred to, NOT as human beings, but as the 12 tribes of Israel. It’s not a personal reference at all.

This is completely backward. The twelve tribes prefigure the Twelve Disciples. There’s not even a way to sensibly interpret the Twelve Disciples as being metaphoric representatives. How would you interpret Galatians 2:11-13 metaphorically? Or, for that matter, any of the mentions of the Twelve?

Obviously, Christ chose twelve people for a reason. That doesn’t make them not real people.

A person in this day and age, simply cannot make a statment(My religion comes from the original disciples, of god) and get away with it.

The Catholic Church isn’t just making that claim “in this day and age.” It’s been making it since day one, and has the paper trail to prove it. On the other hand, where is the historical evidence for a Gnostic Church embraced by any of the Disciples, or passed down to successors?

It’s not even close which side history is on. Read any of the early Church Fathers, and you’ll get a clear view of what Christianity is.