Who wrote St Mathew's Gospel?

[levi86]

It is completely speculative. .

If you were to research the issue sincerely you find that this not the case.

It implies that the gospels were not reliable.

How so?

It implies that the only truth they have is gathered from this Q source. It is heresy as far as I see.

No it doesn’t. It suggests that there are two sources of truth within Matthew and Luke, the Q source (whatever it may be) and Marks Gospel. How is this heresy?

 

[Contarini]

It is completely speculative.

It’s a theory that accounts for the evidence. Sure, it’s speculative and should never be a matter of doctrine. But there’s nothing wrong with speculation as long as it is modest about its own claims.

It implies that the gospels were not reliable.

No, it does absolutely nothing of the sort.

It implies that the only truth they have is gathered from this Q source.

You are misinformed. In the Q theory there are four different sources:
Mark
Q
Material peculiar to Matthew
Material peculiar to Luke

This says nothing one way or the other about the reliability of any of these sources.

It is heresy as far as I see.

If this is based on what you have just said, then it is a very ill-informed opinion.

Edwin

 

[jimmy]

If you were to research the issue sincerely you find that this not the case.

OK, show me one shread of historical proof. Show me when and where they found the Q document or any reference to it. Because both Matthew and Luke include the beatitudes that means there is some Q source? Because they both include Christs words at the last supper that means there must be some Q source that they both copied from?

How so?

Because it says that whatever is true from the gospels was simply copied from other sources. Those other sources do not exist therefore there is no way to check them. Since the gospels are simply copied from other sources, then where is the inspiration in it? The authors were simply editors.

Well, the fact that every one of them denies miracles is one reason. Do you know who these historical critics are? They are agnostics like Dominic Crossan who reject whatever they want from scripture.

The object of historical criticism is to prove that the scriptures are false. How do you think they date the gospels? If something that is said in the gospel seems to alude to something after that time it is assumed to be written later. For example Matthew 24 is the olivet discourse. This discourse speaks of the destruction of the temple. That is why they say that it must have been written after AD70, because there is no way Christ could have made that prediction.

They start with false assumptions. For example the idea that the more of a developed theology the later it is written. They say John’s gospel was written late because it is too well developed. They have applied the idea of evolution to scripture. They are atheists or agnostics who use these techniques.

No it doesn’t. It suggests that there are two sources of truth within Matthew and Luke, the Q source (whatever it may be) and Marks Gospel. How is this heresy?

Mark’s gospel is also a product of Q according to this Q idea. The heresy is that it inherently denies inspiration and it inherently denies apostolic authorship. They are both heresies condemned by the Catholic Church.

I believe that Matthew is the primary source so I have already rejected their assumption. But they would say that I am wrong because they follow the dogma of evolution.

 

[Contarini]

It is heresy. It says the gospels were simply coppied from Q. One scholar proposed a “L” source because Luke contains things that Matthew and Mark don’t contain, therefore there must be another gospel that he copied from.

“L” is just a term for the material peculiar to Luke, just as “M” is a term for the material peculiar to Matthew. I know Streeter’s name but haven’t read him, but I can believe that he and other historical critics would treat these as separate documents. I take Luke at his word that he did extensive historical research, so I believe “L” to be the result of his interviews with eyewitnesses (most likely including the Blessed Virgin).

Be careful not to confuse what some scholars deduce from “Q” with the necessary results of the theory. That appears to be what you are doing. “Q” could be either a document originally written by Matthew or a body of oral tradition. There’s nothing about the theory that implies that the Gospels are not accurate. That is believed by skeptical scholars on other grounds.

Matthew couldn’t possibly be the apostle because that would give him too much credibility.

That’s not the reasoning. There are good (if not wholly conclusive) reasons to think Mark was written first. Since Matthew as we have it clearly depends in large measure on Mark (or vice versa), Marcan priority implies that Matthew was probably not an eyewitness. I’m inclined toward the view that Matthew was the source for some part of Matthew–either “Q” or perhaps the birth narrative. There’s some reason why early Christians identified Matthew with this Gospel, but it doesn’t have to be that he wrote it in the form we now have.

I think that Matthew predates Mark.

It may. I rather think not, given the fact that Matthew uses better Greek and is somewhat less vivid in details–both of these factors point to Matthew as the later text. But there’s no way to know for sure, it seems to me.

The Q source idea, as I said, implies that they could not have actually known the apostles or Christ.

It implies that they were not eyewitnesses. But we know Luke was not an eyewitness, and I see nothing heretical about the supposition that the early Christian witness to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel referred to something other than the completed text as we have it–quite possibly to “Q.”

These Q source supporters believe Mark used Q as well.

No, Q is the name for the material common to Matthew and Luke but *not *found in Mark.

Mark is not a source seperate from Q.

You are wrong here. If you are going to attack a theory, it helps to know what the theory is.

Yes it does. The Church has declared that all the NT is written by either apostles or their direct students.

Where is this taught, and how “direct” do they have to be? Q is quite compatible with the traditional view that Mark learned from Peter, and Luke himself says that he compiled his Gospel from the reports of those better informed than he.

I think that the multiplication of documents by historical critics is indeed silly. Many of the sources they talk about–possibly including Q–are probably oral rather than written sources. The main reason I’m open to the idea that Q might have been a written source is that early Christians speculated that Matthew was based on a lost “Hebrew” text.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

OK, show me one shread of historical proof. Show me when and where they found the Q document or any reference to it.

Historical evidence can be indirect as well as direct.

Because both Matthew and Luke include the beatitudes that means there is some Q source? Because they both include Christs words at the last supper that means there must be some Q source that they both copied from?

I think that oral tradition can be a lot more accurate than the critics generally admit. But it is certainly reasonable to suppose that when accounts coincide verbally one of them has borrowed from the other, or both from a common source.

Since the gospels are simply copied from other sources, then where is the inspiration in it? The authors were simply editors.

First of all, that is not implied by Q (there are particular reasons for believing in Q that do not necessarily apply to all the documents posited by critics). But even if the authors of the Gospels we have were simply editors, that would not deny inspiration. God inspires the entire process, up to and including the editing.

Well, the fact that every one of them denies miracles is one reason.

That is a lie. N.T. Wright does not deny miracles. However controversial they may be in conservative Catholic circles, I have not heard that Raymond Brown or John Meier have ever denied miracles.

Do you know who these historical critics are?

You obviously don’t.

They are agnostics like Dominic Crossan who reject whatever they want from scripture.

Historical criticism is simply the method of studying the Bible as you would any other ancient text. For believing Christians, it should never be the only method used. But plenty of believing Christians use it to determine what we can know about Jesus historically. This is useful for apologetics and can also give us a richer picture of Jesus, informing rather than contradicting Christian tradition and theology.

You are engaging in some quite blatant logical fallacies here. Just because skeptics use historical criticism does not prove that historical criticism is contrary to the Faith.

The object of historical criticism is to prove that the scriptures are false.

Nonsense. That is the object of some historical critics, not of the discipline as a whole.

How do you think they date the gospels? If something that is said in the gospel seems to alude to something after that time it is assumed to be written later. For example Matthew 24 is the olivet discourse. This discourse speaks of the destruction of the temple. That is why they say that it must have been written after AD70, because there is no way Christ could have made that prediction.

The more nuanced argument is that the prediction is more detailed than in Mark, and so was probably filled in after the event. However, you are right that many critics do rely on these arguments. This is both a function of their bias and also (I admit) a possible trap of the method itself. Generally in discussing ancient documents we do not assume the supernatural.

Therefore, responsible use of higher criticism will always include the caveat “if the supernatural is involved, then such-and-such part of the theory would look like Y instead of X.” So, for instance, if a theory of Matthew’s date is really based on the view that it can’t contain a true prediction, then this needs to be made explicit, so that those of us who don’t share the assumption can control for it.

They start with false assumptions. For example the idea that the more of a developed theology the later it is written.

I agree that this is overused (when it is assumed that a particular theology can’t possibly have developed before a certain date), but are you really going to deny doctrinal development?

They say John’s gospel was written late because it is too well developed.

It’s commonly agreed that John was written late–that is not a particularly liberal theory. I know that a few scholars have suggested that it might have been written under Nero, but Domitian has been by far the more popular choice, and I think this was the case long before historical criticism arose.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[jimmy]

I agree that this is overused (when it is assumed that a particular theology can’t possibly have developed before a certain date), but are you really going to deny doctrinal development?

Ha, not today. But the theory and its logic is false.

It’s commonly agreed that John was written late–that is not a particularly liberal theory. I know that a few scholars have suggested that it might have been written under Nero, but Domitian has been by far the more popular choice, and I think this was the case long before historical criticism arose.

Yes, I realize that. I was only using John as an example though. The same could be said of Matthew. Mark would be said to be the first simply because it is the shortest and most simple. As you said above, because Matthew is more vivid, therefore he wrote later. Matthew could be more vivid because he actually witnessed the events.

Oral tradition is one thing, but to turn the evangelists into simple editors of the gospels is to remove their power as evangelists.

 

[palmas85]

Without taking sides, I will say this. I was taught that the first Gospel written was more than likely Mark not Matthew.

I was also taught that it is probably impossible to know exactly what the original Gospels said because we don;t have copies of the originals or even copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. We do know that some early scribes, both orthodox and those of various heretical sects, altered the passages they were copying in order to reflect their particular viewpoint, or to discredit their rivals, whateve rthe case may have been

I would reccommend that everyone concerned take a deep breath and go out and buy a copy of the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman. A fascinating read it exposes many things about scripture that most people don’t know or even suspect. And Dr Ehrman does it from a perspective of respect, dignity and trust in the inherent truth of scripture while admitting that man has tampered with what we have today.

I found Dr Ehrmans commentary and research on the King James Version to be particularly insightful, particularly to a Catholic , since so many protestant groups consider the KJV the ultimate in scripture.

 

[John_Hiner]

It might be a good idea to review Sacrorum Antistitum (The Oath Against Modernism) of St. Pius X, and the documents which it references, before considering some of the opinions which have been presented in this thread.

The references are to:

Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and

Lamentabili Sane (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists).

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[123rock]

***The gospels had to be written later than AD 70 because Jesus couldn’t have actually predicted the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem as He did in Matt.24. ***

I specifically remember where a scholar explicitly mentions this. I can’t seem to find where I read it, but this is true, and miracles are a priori excluded as myth and folklore addition. For the historical method they only serve as pointing out who depended on who, and possibly as in the case of Mark, the existence of oral tradition. This is all the more better and it’s irrelevant to stylistics, which in my opinion is the one and only true decision-maker in this case for the authenticity of date and consequently authorship

 

[123rock]

I think that oral tradition can be a lot more accurate than the critics generally admit. But it is certainly reasonable to suppose that when accounts coincide verbally one of them has borrowed from the other, or both from a common source.

Before I was reluctant to admit that there was either a Synoptic Problem, or a Q, but in my opinion it is likely that both exist (Q being oral tradition of course). I do think that the argument of Mark being prior to Matthew, that it is shorter yet fuller in description, can be turned around and be a redaction of Matthew, and there can be arguments that Matthew was first, such as more Jewish.

The Papias quote that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew does not necessarily have to be dismissed. The scholars say that the Gospel of Matthew we have today does not show signs of having been translated to Greek, but if you are to dissect Papias’ quote and take the “sayings of the Lord,” a little more literally you can see that this may not be entirely impossible. Matthew 5:3-7:27 are entirely sayings of Jesus. It could be speculated that at first it was only that, and then it was translated into Greek with surrounding history added.

One thing is fairly certain. Matthew as we have it today was certainly written by 100. Ignatius alludes to a verse in the New Testament found only in Matthew (Matthew 10:16) in Polycarp 2:2:

In all circumstances be “wise as a serpent”, and perpetually “harmless as a dove”. The reason you have a body as well as a soul is that you may win the favor of the visible world. But ask that you may have revelations of what is unseen. In that way you will lack nothing and have an abundance of every gift.

 

[Zooey]

St. Matthew wrote the original–the Fathers tend to agree the original was in Aramaic or Hebrew. Then someone (the scribe you mention?) translated it to Greek. The Greek is all we have now, the original was lost to history.

Exactlty!!!

Why does not anyone accept the obvious, namely, rhat ‘Q’ is the remanent of the rough notes made by Levi/Matthew, during the mission.

Makes sense to me!!
There are, of course, some people ( who call themselves ‘scholars’)who would:shrug: deny this, simply because they would rather be “smart”, than correct…

 

[patg]

It might be a good idea to review Sacrorum Antistitum (The Oath Against Modernism) of St. Pius X, and the documents which it references, before considering some of the opinions which have been presented in this thread.

The references are to:

Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and

Lamentabili Sane (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists).

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

We ought to have a thread just on that topic sometime because those documents contain masses of incredible, untenable and unsupportable insults to a Catholic’s intelligence. I am very glad that they have drifted into the backwaters of history and pretty much forgotten. I can’t imagine accepting Christianity based on that “oath”.

 

[patg]

Exactlty!!!

Exactly? Do you have any reasonable proof?

Makes sense to me!!

And the Church allows you to believe that. The Church also allows me to believe that the gospel authorship, while still inspired, is far removed from the eyewitnesses.
There are, of course, some people ( who call themselves ‘scholars’)who would:shrug: deny this, simply because they would rather be “smart”, than correct…
The church allows them to be both - which is why we have a Pontifical Biblical Commission in the first place. Neither you nor I nor, in most cases, they are ever completely correct.

 

[John_Hiner]

We ought to have a thread just on that topic sometime because those documents contain masses of incredible, untenable and unsupportable insults to a Catholic’s intelligence. I am very glad that they have drifted into the backwaters of history and pretty much forgotten. I can’t imagine accepting Christianity based on that “oath”.

Nevertheless, these documents set forth the Faith of the Church of Christ and must be accepted.

If the discussion can be helpfully framed, it would be interesting to discuss the documents *Sacrorum Antistitum *(The Oath Against Modernism), Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and *Lamentabili Sane *(Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists), as well as the Modernist (and “Neo-Modernist) heresies individually and as a group. It may be that such a discussion could make the arguments of the documents more accessible, and expand our imaginations enough to embrace the truths expressed.

It seems certain, however, that a person seeking to be loyal to the teachings of the Popes should review these documents when assessing arguments that seek to use “science” as a standard to judge the reliability of the Gospel as taught by the Church.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Contarini]

Yes, I realize that. I was only using John as an example though. The same could be said of Matthew. Mark would be said to be the first simply because it is the shortest and most simple. As you said above, because Matthew is more vivid, therefore he wrote later. Matthew could be more vivid because he actually witnessed the events.

You misread me. I said that Matthew is less vivid. That is precisely why I do not think those sections of Matthew are by an eyewitness. On the other hand, the Sermon on the Mount (part of “Q”) with its Aramaic phrases, sounds to me like a pretty direct transcription of what Jesus actually said.

I repeat: you have to distinguish between the theory itself and the way it is used. Much biblical scholarship is indeed way too skeptical. But it’s quite possible to believe in Q and to believe that it was written by an eyewitness who wrote down from memory a pretty accurate transcript of Jesus’ sayings (or that it represents the accurate oral transmission of Jesus’ words until written down by the author of the First Gospel); and that Mark was (as tradition states) writing down Peter’s reminiscences.

Oral tradition is one thing, but to turn the evangelists into simple editors of the gospels is to remove their power as evangelists.

I’m not sure that’s true, but I for one do not do that.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I specifically remember where a scholar explicitly mentions this. I can’t seem to find where I read it, but this is true, and miracles are a priori excluded as myth and folklore addition.

Because some scholar says this doesn’t mean that all scholars do it. Again, I offer N. T. Wright as exhibit A.

Certainly historical scholarship, rather like science, finds it difficult to accommodate miracles because they get in the way of the search for a historical explanation. For instance, normally when we look at a historical document one of the tools we use to date it is an examination of the historical events referred to, with the assumption that it must postdate any such events. That’s what scholars are doing when the date Matthew after A.D. 70, for instance, because it predicts the destruction of the Temple quite specifically (Mark does as well, but in this instance is vaguer and so is generally admitted to precede the event!). However, there’s nothing to stop a historian simply allowing for the possibility of miracles while admitting that this is not going to be satisfactory to those with different religious presuppositions.

This is a basic problem with using historical method to study Scripture. It has nothing to do with Q per se, as far as I can see.

Edwin

 

[tjoe]

I am about to begin a course on the Gospel of Matthew and I bought some books on the subject. They are written by Catholic priests that teach in Universities in Europe.
Some say that the author of that Gospel is St. Matthew the Apostle, who before following Jesus worked collecting taxes.
Others say the author is a scribe that lived in Antioch and that he wrote the Gospel in Greek based on an early Aramaic text written by St Mathew the Apostle.
I find it very confusing.
Would you be kind enough to tell me what the Catholic Church says officially about this?

I thank you in advance.
:tiphat:
Alma

Hi Alma,

The big confusion is this. There are too many theories that are being passed off as FACT. Source Q is a hypothetical guess at an unnamed, well, source. This comes from comparing the Gospels of Matt, Mark and Luke. The “late dating” game also came into play in recent decades. What’s the problem with this?? Does it matter when a book was writted and exactly by whom? Short Answer YES. Question the motives of pushing such things…

If some one else wrote the books, are these really “edited versions”? If Q is a lost source, it call to question where the Apostles really got there info. There is too much effort put in only looking at the Scriptures as “literature”, or “tradition stories” and edited manuscripts. Ever notice, Divine Revelation is hardly ever mentioned. Some of these theories are put up as a replacements for “out dated” (read: pre-vatican II) thinking in favor of the new science. In short it’s the undermining of traditional authority and authenticity of the Bible and the Church that interprets it.

For example, if the Gospel of John was written, then “edited” later, who edited it and with what? What was taken out or added? You see, know we are not so sure anymore. It makes it easier for some experts to claim that the books are socially shaped, therfore the Church’s teaching needs to be constantly reshaped by society’s “new thinking” in rejection of the old.

I go on, butt I’ll end up writting a book!!

Peace, Good Luck with you classes

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Because some scholar says this doesn’t mean that all scholars do it. Again, I offer N. T. Wright as exhibit A.

Certainly historical scholarship, rather like science, finds it difficult to accommodate miracles because they get in the way of the search for a historical explanation. For instance, normally when we look at a historical document one of the tools we use to date it is an examination of the historical events referred to, with the assumption that it must postdate any such events. That’s what scholars are doing when the date Matthew after A.D. 70, for instance, because it predicts the destruction of the Temple quite specifically (Mark does as well, but in this instance is vaguer and so is generally admitted to precede the event!). However, there’s nothing to stop a historian simply allowing for the possibility of miracles while admitting that this is not going to be satisfactory to those with different religious presuppositions.

This is a basic problem with using historical method to study Scripture. It has nothing to do with Q per se, as far as I can see.

Edwin

Let us take a look at the times:
Palestine was then, as it is now, an occupied land. The occupation forces there, then, like those in Iraq now, were hated foreigners, and assasinations of soldiers and quislings was an everyday event, as were the reprisals.
The Essenes were planning a major insurrection, (read the war manual), and some wind of this was about.
The Phariseees, the main quislings were terrified, for they knew what the inevitable result would be, for they had seen many examples of Rome’s response to insurrection.
This was not rocket science, it was fairly obvious what was coming, and what the result would be.
It seems to me that Our Lord was aware of what was afoot, and was warning against it, indeed trying to make an alternative method of insurrection, such as was used by Ghandi, so many years later.
It seems to Me, that Our Lord makes these predictions of bad times to come by simply reading the signs of the times, an expression that he himself uses.
What happenned then is that some time after the events predicted, some pious scribe inserted glosses into the text, using the introduction ‘ut impletur…’
So we have a pre-event text with post event glosses. These glosses should be seen as what they are. commonly, those recognised as such are placed in parenthasis. They do not date the text as a whole, only some stage of the history of the editting thereof.
For instance,

1/ The genialogy in Matthew was originally a seperate doccument, and the Gospel originally started with:

Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

The genialogy was added some 150 years later, after the publication of Tatian’s first Diatessaron, which pointedly omits any reference to it.

2/ The tale of the adulteress was not in John before AD 200. It is believed that it was originally in Luke, though that is not certain.

3/ Matthew 16:1-3:

And there came to him the Pharisees and Sadducees tempting: and they asked him to shew them a sign from heaven.
But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.
And in the morning: To day there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering.

This is clearly an insertion of a BRITISH weather predicting prophesy, which is dependant on the Atlantic Gyre, and the Gulf Stream Drift for its accuracy of about 95% in the northern regions of England, where the Codex Amiatinus was transcribed.
In the Holy Lands, prevailant westerlies are NOT a feature of the weather throughout the year, only for a few months in winter, and so the accuracy of the prediction is little better than 60%, or marginally better than chance. Hardly a paradigm of prophesy.
No way though would I use this recent insertion to date Matthew as post AD 710!

 

[tjoe]

It might be a good idea to review Sacrorum Antistitum (The Oath Against Modernism) of St. Pius X, and the documents which it references, before considering some of the opinions which have been presented in this thread.

The references are to:

Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and

Lamentabili Sane (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists).

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

You could add Vatican I, Vatican II, Trent…Divino Afflante Spiritu, Providentissimus Deus and Spiritu Paracletus

Peace,

 

[tjoe]

Exactly? Do you have any reasonable proof?

And the Church allows you to believe that. The Church also allows me to believe that the gospel authorship, while still inspired, is far removed from the eyewitnesses.
There are, of course, some people ( who call themselves ‘scholars’)who would:shrug: deny this, simply because they would rather be “smart”, than correct…

The church allows them to be both - which is why we have a Pontifical Biblical Commission in the first place. Neither you nor I nor, in most cases, they are ever completely correct.

The Pontiffical Bible Commission tends to accept the Tradition of the Fathers and the long standing Tradition of the Church in these matters. While it is true the Popes going back to Pius XII, and I think Leo XII, have encouraged further study and use of the sciences, there are some things that science can’t just disreguard just because they can’t prove it or won’t except it.

We cannot take the realivistic view that I can believe in it my way and you can have you way.

Peace