Who wrote St Mathew's Gospel?

[patg]

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

But the church has made dogmative interpretations of so very few scripture passages that we can, in most cases, take that vew.

 

[Alma]

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

Thank you all, guys, but after 41 threads I am still confused!!!

Is there a book that contains the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Bible?, some sort of Catholic Cathecism on the Bible?

Thank you again,:bowdown2:

Alma

 

[lanceg]

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

Alma, I have every confidence that every single one of the 27 books in the New Testament were written by the men whose names were traditionally associated with them. I am even willing to accept that St. Paul wrote Hebrews and the Peter wrote 2nd Peter, those are the two exceptions even the most traditional scholars are willing to make. I acknowledge we may not know who wrote Hebrews- but for the other 26 books, whosever name on the title page is who wrote it. That means Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all actually wrote their gospels. I do not believe that any of these books would have been received into the canon if the church was not sure that these books were written by apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, James, Peter) or their immediate disciples (Mark & Luke).

 

[Contarini]

Alma, I have every confidence that every single one of the 27 books in the New Testament were written by the men whose names were traditionally associated with them. I am even willing to accept that St. Paul wrote Hebrews and the Peter wrote 2nd Peter, those are the two exceptions even the most traditional scholars are willing to make.

Well, I’m a church historian rather than an NT expert, but I’ll actually defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter sooner than some other things, because the letter appears to be trying very hard to convince us that Peter was the author. When the name simply appears in the text (Ephesians, Jude, etc.) or is simply a traditional ascription (Matthew), I’m quite willing to listen to arguments about authorship.

Edwin

 

[patg]

Thank you all, guys, but after 41 threads I am still confused!!!

Is there a book that contains the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Bible?, some sort of Catholic Cathecism on the Bible?

Thank you again,:bowdown2:

Alma

Not really - mainly because there isn’t a lot of official interpretation…

• There is the catechism which lays out the doctrines and dogmas with references to the scriptures.
• There are the papal documents on biblical interpretation such as Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Spiritu.
• There are the many documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (the PBC) such as The interpretation of the Bible in the Church andHistorical Truth of the Gospels.
• There are many books (many written under the imprimatur) by members of the PBC, such as Raymond Brown, John Meier, and Margaret Ralph.

 

[123rock]

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

Interesting point, but you must remember that Tatian redacted a lot of the Gospels to fit his Christology, so cutting out the genealogies is in no way a solid fact of them being a later addition, because he also neglects Christ’s divinity; something that was clearly in the Gospels 70 years earlier (Ignatius).

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.

There is no tradition of the adultress, but to say that it wasn’t in John before 200 is again something that cannot be established as true beyond a reasonable doubt. It may be a later addition, just like Mark 16:9-20, but you’d have to establish why there was any necessity for it to have been added.

3/ Matthew 16:1-3:

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!

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read, honestly no offence, but please rethink your theories.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Interesting point, but you must remember that Tatian redacted a lot of the Gospels to fit his Christology, so cutting out the genealogies is in no way a solid fact of them being a later addition, because he also neglects Christ’s divinity; something that was clearly in the Gospels 70 years earlier (Ignatius).

Of course, you have not read the original, for no-one alive today has, for it is no-longer extant, however, the witness of Ephrem Syrus, and the Arabic derivitive deny the attitude towards Tatian’s Christology. He was no more encratite or ascetic than St. Paul!
In fact, his Christology was extremely Pauline.
The detail, and faithfulness with which the arabic follows the text of the Pesheeta Gospels makes it clear that he omitted nothing that was at the time present.
To read the Arabic, goto:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.html?highlight=tatian#highlight
Note, this is, I believe a reconstruction based on Ephrem Syrus, not a derivitive of the original Syriac.

There is no tradition of the adultress, but to say that it wasn’t in John before 200 is again something that cannot be established as true beyond a reasonable doubt. It may be a later addition, just like Mark 16:9-20, but you’d have to establish why there was any necessity for it to have been added.

I have for the moment lost the original reference I had, but you might peruse these:
bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Ani01.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read, honestly no offence, but please rethink your theories.

Now, re-read what you have just written.
Yes, the claim does seem to be ridiculous.
But the science behind the claim is beyond question.
There is NO PLACE ON THIS PLANET, other than North Britain, where this weather predicting proverb has any reliability significantly greater than chance.
As I said, it is dependant on prevailing Westerly winds, and a warm ocean up-wind. These conditions only exist in the North Atlantic, embodied in the Gulfstream, sometimes known as the conveyer current.
This current strikes the European coast primarily about Ireland, and Atlantic weather, so called, is common in Northern Britain, not just limited to the Western coast, but, due to the narrowness of the land at this latitude, all across the country.
Study weather maps of Britain, and the Holy Land, as I did, and you too will find this is indisputable.