Who Wrote the Four Gospels?

[David_Zampino]

most folks don’t know how to rebuild an engine… But that doesn’t disqualify them from driving a car.

Thank God!!!

 

[paul_c]

Paul,

You fall into a number of problematic areas here.

You miss my point entirely. I never claimed that Mark was an apostle! I stated that the Church recognized Mark’s Gospel as being apostolic!

As are many of us. As previously stated, I’m not trying to shove credentials down people’s throats. It’s just that question have been raised.

I could go into a great deal of detail about the deliberate arrangement of material in Matthew, if you’re interested – but it seems to me that this goes beyond the original intent of this thread.

With respect, I don’t think that you’re aware of the “prevailing view”. With respect, I don’t think that you’ve gone beyond much behind your own “comfort level”.

I’ll be very honest. You’ve probably pegged me as some radical “liberal”, but actually, I’m probably more conservative than most in the field.

I have very little use for the commentary in the NAB. VERY little use.

You might be interested in learning that the Protestant scholar, the late Bruce Metzger, shared a, shall we say, severe mistrust of the validity of the NAB.

What I resent, is the notion that those who accept ANY form of Higher Criticism, are automatically branded as “liberals” – when this is plainly not true.

I wasn’t judging you at all here. I’m sorry if it appeared that way. I was simply asking for your insight. Why are you hesitant to give it? So if you don’t think I understand the prevailing view, enlighten me. I honestly want to learn. Point me to a valid internet reference that you think explains this view if you don’t want to give me your own view. This is certainly within the scopre of this thread, which afterall is on who wrote the 4 Gospels (and clearly from the discussion so far, when and under what circumstances).

 

[diggerdomer]

I wasn’t judging you at all here. I’m sorry if it appeared that way. I was simply asking for your insight. Why are you hesitant to give it? So if you don’t think I understand the prevailing view, enlighten me. I honestly want to learn. Point me to a valid internet reference that you think explains this view if you don’t want to give me your own view. This is certainly within the scopre of this thread, which afterall is on who wrote the 4 Gospels (and clearly from the discussion so far, when and under what circumstances).

The best overall Catholic Internet resource I am aware of for what you’re asking is here:

catholic-resources.org/Bible/index.html

The links there should be of assistance. Hope this helps.

 

[David_Zampino]

Isn’t it obvious? Thiede actually argued that since the main comparative script (from Nahal Hever) is generally dated no later than AD 50, the possibility of a date around the middle of the first century for the Magdalen papyrus would be possible. Matthew D’Ancona even says as much in the book he co-wrote with Thiede, Eyewitness to Christ:

“…Yet Thiede…argued that they * were of astonishingly early origin, dating from the mid-first century A.D…”

This review of that book* even describes how Thiede arrived at that date:

“…Thiede reexamined the fragments, using state-of-the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede’s tests and skill appear to be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have met with strong opposition from critics…”

• Of course* Thiede’s conclusions “have met with strong opposition from critics” … Mark’s Gospel is commonly dated between 64 and 70. Don’t you think a date of 60 (or even as early as 50) for Matthew would have important implications for the dating of Mark (and for Markan priority)? Doesn’t a date of 60 (or even as early as 50) for Matthew support the Clementine theory that Matthew – an eyewitness Apostle – wrote first?

Hi Erich,

A very interesting review – and yes, I’ve found an equally critical one, as you can imagine.

A few thoughts here . . .

1. The review to which you linked had an aggravating habit of adding the adjective “liberal” wherever he used the phrase “higher critics” which is loaded language. Not every “higher critic” is a “liberal”, not every form of higher criticism is as useful as others.
2. Thiede used “higher critical” methodology to re-date this fragment! Does this mean that it is okay to use higher critical methodology when it agrees with your conclusion, but not when it does not agree with your conclusion?
3. The fragment Thiede used is a very, very small fragment, as you well know. Have other scholars duplicated his work and arrived at similar conclusions?
4. This is not only a re-date of a fragment, but a significant re-date. A difference of 140-150 years is remarkable. Thiede used radio-carbon dating on other artifacts, why not here?
5. Thiede had a reputation in the scientific and archeological community to, how shall we say, draw conclusions (or jump to them) beyond which the data actually warranted.
6. As the fallout from the fraud about the alleged ossuarry box of James continues, it must be sadly noted that archeological fraud is common – and even scholars have been fooled.

7) Setting aside my previous points, I will freely grant that yes, if a text of Matthew could be conclusively linked to AD 50 or 60, and that enough of the text was discovered to demonstrate that it was, indeed, a complete Gospel (and not merely “sayings” as indicated by Papias) Markan priority would be utterly destroyed.

But there is still a lot of work to do and many discoveries which would have to be made before we can make Thiede’s work into a reasonable hypothesis, much less a conclusion.

Thanks for posting the link.

 

[David_Zampino]

I wasn’t judging you at all here. I’m sorry if it appeared that way. I was simply asking for your insight. Why are you hesitant to give it? So if you don’t think I understand the prevailing view, enlighten me. I honestly want to learn. Point me to a valid internet reference that you think explains this view if you don’t want to give me your own view. This is certainly within the scopre of this thread, which afterall is on who wrote the 4 Gospels (and clearly from the discussion so far, when and under what circumstances).

Forgive me if I sounded grouchy! I was tired and had a long day!

However, I have given my view – repeatedly.

Indeed, I have argued both against Matthean priority and for a 4-source Markan priority which would admit to the possibility of the existence of a proto-Matthew, pre-dating a finished Mark, containing the “sayings” of Jesus – which is what Papias stated.

 

[paul_c]

Forgive me if I sounded grouchy! I was tired and had a long day!

However, I have given my view – repeatedly.

Indeed, I have argued both against Matthean priority and for a 4-source Markan priority which would admit to the possibility of the existence of a proto-Matthew, pre-dating a finished Mark, containing the “sayings” of Jesus – which is what Papias stated.

Yes, You have argued against Matthean priority, mostly arguing that other’s points couldn’t be proven.

And yes, you said you support a 4 source Markan priority

But you have never said why. I can’t help but wonder why you are so hesitant to put your on thoughts out there. And by why, I mean, why do you think Mark was first. What is your reasoning. . (other than that’s what the predominant view is)…If you have said it already, please point me to the post because I searched through this thread and could not find it. And what would it hurt to restate it anyway?

 

[buffalo]

De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men)

 

[David_Zampino]

De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men)

A worthy document from a Doctor of the Church.

Are you trying to make a point? What is it?

To which part of the document are you trying to draw attention?

 

[David_Zampino]

Paul,

I’ll try once more, and this will be my final attempt.

Yes, You have argued against Matthean priority, mostly arguing that other’s points couldn’t be proven.

Sort of. Yes, the other points supporting Matthean priority can not be proven. Further, many of the “points” posted, and re-posted, and re-posted, etc. are more “talking points” or directions to outside links, than they are cogent arguments.

And yes, you said you support a 4 source Markan priority

Yes, I have. Repeatedly. Why? Because in my scholarship and research, it fits the best evidence we have at this time. AT THIS TIME!!!

Please note my last post to Erich.

But you have never said why.

Factually incorrect. I have. repeatedly.

I can’t help but wonder why you are so hesitant to put your on thoughts out there.

I’m not – and I haven’t been.

Google me! My thoughts are out there! You may not like them, but they are out there!

And by why, I mean, why do you think Mark was first. What is your reasoning. . (other than that’s what the predominant view is)…If you have said it already, please point me to the post because I searched through this thread and could not find it. And what would it hurt to restate it anyway?

I could re-state it a million times. Apparently, it hasn’t worked.

I’LL ask YOU!!! Why do YOU insist on Matthean priority, other than you’ve read a few essays that have convinced you? And have you verified the legitimacy (or the veracity) of your sources?

I mean no disrespect – but I have been straightforward about my scholarly OPINION on a controversial matter. I have produced my qualifications. I have explained that when I teach, I teach this as an OPINION!

I want to ask you a question – a serious question – and I’d like an honest answer.

Have you studied, REALLY STUDIED, this issue? Or have you found a theory which appeals to you, and are more interested in supporting that theory, than actually discussing the research?

Did you see my comments to Erich? I did more than look up the single link he cited, I did some research on the subject. Can you (or he) answer any of the points I made? Why is it okay for a Matthean priority scholar to use modern higher critical tools, but it’s not okay for a Markan priority scholar to do the same?

Can you answer me?

Again, I mean no disrespect, but if this is the direction the thread is headed, I’ll be backing out.

Now, off to dinner and then to Knights!

 

[paul_c]

Paul,

I’ll try once more, and this will be my final attempt.

Sort of. Yes, the other points supporting Matthean priority can not be proven. Further, many of the “points” posted, and re-posted, and re-posted, etc. are more “talking points” or directions to outside links, than they are cogent arguments.

Yes, I have. Repeatedly. Why? Because in my scholarship and research, it fits the best evidence we have at this time. AT THIS TIME!!!

Please note my last post to Erich.

Factually incorrect. I have. repeatedly.

I’m not – and I haven’t been.

Google me! My thoughts are out there! You may not like them, but they are out there!

I could re-state it a million times. Apparently, it hasn’t worked.

I’LL ask YOU!!! Why do YOU insist on Matthean priority, other than you’ve read a few essays that have convinced you? And have you verified the legitimacy (or the veracity) of your sources?

I mean no disrespect – but I have been straightforward about my scholarly OPINION on a controversial matter. I have produced my qualifications. I have explained that when I teach, I teach this as an OPINION!

I want to ask you a question – a serious question – and I’d like an honest answer.

Have you studied, REALLY STUDIED, this issue? Or have you found a theory which appeals to you, and are more interested in supporting that theory, than actually discussing the research?

Did you see my comments to Erich? I did more than look up the single link he cited, I did some research on the subject. Can you (or he) answer any of the points I made? Why is it okay for a Matthean priority scholar to use modern higher critical tools, but it’s not okay for a Markan priority scholar to do the same?

Can you answer me?

Again, I mean no disrespect, but if this is the direction the thread is headed, I’ll be backing out.

Now, off to dinner and then to Knights!

Actually, I have read a lot about this. I found this document source pretty good at identifying the issues: mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm

this one probably explains your position well: catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm do you have anything to add?

this source outlines the huge variety of theories on this issue:mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

The fact is none of these theories is without its problems. I don’t like the Markan priority because I believe it calls into question the apostolic authorship of Matthew and I simply don’t find the arguments for it compelling enough to question what I think is the traditional view that Matthew was the first Gospel. To me it also makes sense that the first Gospel would have been for the Hebrews in Galilee, since that is where the Faith started.

This is what Jerome says about Matthew:

Chapter 3
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist Out of Egypt have I called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene
: