Who Wrote the Four Gospels?

[paul_c]

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called ‘synoptic’ gospels from the Greek word synopsis meaning “one-eye view”, since all three give a view of Christ’s life and works from their similarity in content, order, and statement. Since they share a similarity with each other, scholars have long believed that the writers had access to an earlier work of Jesus’s life. The gospels are largely from the initial Christian communities founded by the apostles. It is quite probable that a scribe could have interviewed those who knew Jesus and recorded, like Luke did, the events. Did Matthew and Mark write their own? Maybe, maybe not. Luke was not an apostle as far as I know but was a physician, and I believe he personally wrote his own gospel and the Book of Acts, which is a continuation of his gospel. He said he interviewed those who personally knew and were present at this time. There is no reason to deny it. He has more in his gospel than the others (i.e., the infancy narratives). I don’t doubt that he talked with Christ’s mother, either. I also believe that John’s gospel was written by John, the beloved disciple who also either wrote or dictated the book of Revelation. John’s writings were probably much older than the others and were written when he was an old man.

But even before all of this, there are the writings of Paul which I feel are the earliest writings about the Christian community. I also believe that the gospels of Matthew and Mark were already written and were being shared by these communities throughout the Mediterranean area.

There is probably some evidence for all of this, but I prefer to keep these things “close to my heart.”

I think the Clementine Theory is very easy to understand.

Matthew, as the most literate of the Apostles, wrote the first account in Aramaic for the Jews in Palestine and then later translated it into Greek. This could easily have been dated from the 40s or maybe even the late 30s.

Luke, the physician and probably the most literate man in Paul’s company, saw a need to record Christian history for the Gentile converts he came into contact with on the missionary journeys. He did this in the late 50s, based on where the action in Acts ends. He went back to Palestine to accumulate the data for his history and that included access to Matthews Gospel and also to the Blessed Mother.

John’s could easily have been written as always assumed in the 90s to supplement the other two Gospels with the theology that developed in the intermediate years.

That only leaves a question of the generation of Mark. On one hand, we all know it is the shortest, yet in many ways most detailed of the synapotic gospels. It is also in the least sophisticated Greek. It has detailes in common with Luke, and/ or Matthew. We know that Mark was a companion of both Paul and Peter, so he had access to both groups. The Clementine theory suggests that this Gospel came about because Peter gave a series of lectures on the both Gospels, skipping over certain parts and filling in missing details of others. Mark, as Peter’s secretary, took notes and the results were his Gospel. This would make the dating of Mark’s Gospel to be in the early 60s, after Luke’s and before the death of Peter

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Catholic Council of Bishops determines what goes into the Bible. The original books of the Gospels are in storage in archives in Rome.

I’m not sure what is meant by the Catholic Council of Bishops.

And what do you mean by saying the original books of the Gospels are in storage in Rome?

The autograph (original) manuscripts of the bible are all lost.

 

[David_Zampino]

I think the Clementine Theory is very easy to understand.

That doesn’t necessarily make it more (or for that matter, less) likely!

Matthew, as the most literate of the Apostles, wrote the first account in Aramaic for the Jews in Palestine and then later translated it into Greek. This could easily have been dated from the 40s or maybe even the late 30s.

A couple of HUGE assumptions here:

Assumption 1: Suggesting that Matthew was the most literate of the Apostles. We can presume his literacy, because of his position as a tax collector (and his authorship of the Gospel) but Matthew’s literacy says nothing whatsoever about the literacy (or lack thereof) of the others. It is an argument from silence.

Assumption 2: Suggesting a “Proto-Matthew” in Aramaic, prior to the Greek version. This Aramaic Matthew (which, depending on how we read the words of Papais, could be a Hebrew Matthew) has never been discovered. Indeed, it is as absent as our “Q” source! If you choose to discount the possibility of “Q”, by your same argument, you discount the possibility of an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew! Yes, I am quite familiar with the attestation from Papais. But what must also be understood is this: the Fragment of Papais is called a ***FRAGMENT ***for a reason! We don’t have the entire document, which makes it unreliable as a primary source without other attestations. Further, Papais suggests that what Matthew wrote in Aramaic (or Hebrew) were **SAYINGS **of Jesus. Accepting this statement at face value does not require a Matthean priority. Now, for the record, my personal opinion is that there ***WAS ***an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew, which is lost, and which may well have predated Mark. And further that this lost Proto-Matthew was a collection of the ***SAYINGS ***of Jesus, but is not Matthew in its present (read ACCEPTED AS CANONICAL) form, and that the Canonical, Greek Matthew which we DO have was completed after Mark.

Assumption 3: That Matthew was composed as early as the late '30’s to 40’s. There is just no evidence for this. Nothing textual, no hints in any other New Testament writing, no nothing. If this were, in fact, the case, don’t you think there would be some reference to it in the Acts of the Apostles at the Council in Jerusalem – which dealt with issues near and dear to the hearts of Palestinian Jewish Christians? Again, don’t you think that there would be some mention, some suggestion or hint even, in the Epistle to the Hebrews or the Epistle of James, both directed toward the Jewish Christian community?

Luke, the physician and probably the most literate man in Paul’s company, saw a need to record Christian history for the Gentile converts he came into contact with on the missionary journeys. He did this in the late 50s, based on where the action in Acts ends. He went back to Palestine to accumulate the data for his history and that included access to Matthews Gospel and also to the Blessed Mother.

Again, you’re making assumptions!

Assumption 4: Luke as the most literate man in Paul’s company. You don’t seem to have a high level of respect for Jewish literacy! Was Luke literate? Absolutely! So was Paul – the Pharisee, the Rabbi, schooled at the feet of Gamalial – one of the most brilliant men of his generation. About the other companions of Paul – we just don’t know. Again, this is an argument from silence.

Assumption 5: That Luke was written to Gentile converts. Both Luke and Acts were addressed to Theophilus (meaning “Lover of God”). This could have been to an individual interested in Christianity; it could have been written to a Gentile convert; it could be a general introduction to anyone who loves God.

Assumption 6: The action in Acts ends in the 50’s. This one is just plain wrong. Consult a chart of when Felix and Festus, respectively, were Roman governors, and when Nero was Emperor of Rome. The absolute earliest date for the events recorded in the last chapter of Acts is AD 62 – the end of Paul’s two-year house arrest. This would have left precious little time for Luke to run back to Jerusalem, gather information, hear stories from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and hasten back to Rome where, as Scripture tells us clearly, he was the only one with Paul at the end of II Timothy. Paul’s death could have been as early as AD 64, but certainly no later than AD 67, during the Neronian Persecution.

Assumption 7: That Luke knew the Blessed Virgin Mary, and learned stories about the infancy of Jesus from her. This is pious speculation – and is actually plausible. I’ll gladly assume this distinct possibility. But it remains in the realm of pious speculation. I could just as easily speculate (and just as piously ) that the Blessed Virgin Mary was our oral “Q” source!

To Be Continued . . .

 

[David_Zampino]

Part Two:

John’s could easily have been written as always assumed in the 90s to supplement the other two Gospels with the theology that developed in the intermediate years.

Some scholars would place John’s exile during the persecution of Nero, but most place it during the persecution of Domitian, which is more plausible and logical (and beyond the scope of this thread). But yes, this is essentially correct.

That only leaves a question of the generation of Mark. On one hand, we all know it is the shortest, yet in many ways most detailed of the synoptic gospels. It is also in the least sophisticated Greek. It has details in common with Luke, and/or Matthew. We know that Mark was a companion of both Paul and Peter, so he had access to both groups. The Clementine theory suggests that this Gospel came about because Peter gave a series of lectures on the both Gospels, skipping over certain parts and filling in missing details of others. Mark, as Peter’s secretary, took notes and the results were his Gospel. This would make the dating of Mark’s Gospel to be in the early 60s, after Luke’s and before the death of Peter

Again, a huge number of assumptions:

Assumption 8: Mark’s access to Paul’s “group”. We do know that at different times in his life, Mark was a companion of both Peter and Paul. It does not necessarily follow, however, that Mark “had access” to Paul’s “group”. As you might recall, Mark deserted Paul and Barnabas during the 1st Missionary Journey; Paul refused to take Mark on the 2nd Journey, and no mention of Mark is made by Paul again, until the end of II Timothy.

Assumption 9: That Peter gave a series of lectures on Matthew and Luke. This is nothing more than HUGE conjecture, and one which is not physically possible in the case of Luke. (See Assumption 6). The details, which we know from Scripture, can’t be forced to fit this assumption. The claim that Papias has for Mark is that essentially, Mark’s writing were the memoirs of Peter. Considering the time and circumstances of Mark’s writing (during persecution – a persecution which would see the execution of his mentor), Mark was in a hurry to write what was possible in the shortest possible time and fashion. The notion that Peter felt the need to hold a lecture series (during a time of grave persecution) on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when he, himself, was an eyewitness just doesn’t hold water.

If you are portraying the Clementine theory accurately, it is not physically possible. You can possibly come up with a different theory of Matthean priority, but the theory that you present, claiming to be the Clementine, rests on as many assumptions as you seem to think Markan priority scholars hold, with some physically impossible assertions.

 

[NotWorthy]

Assumption 1: Suggesting that Matthew was the most literate of the Apostles. We can presume his literacy, because of his position as a tax collector (and his authorship of the Gospel) but Matthew’s literacy says nothing whatsoever about the literacy (or lack thereof) of the others. It is an argument from silence.

Isn’t Matthew the only one that we know of who was schooled? How much time do fishermen have for schooling? So, although it is an assumption, its an assumption that is not “grasping at straws”.

Assumption 2: Suggesting a “Proto-Matthew” in Aramaic, prior to the Greek version. This Aramaic Matthew (which, depending on how we read the words of Papais, could be a Hebrew Matthew) has never been discovered. Indeed, it is as absent as our “Q” source! If you choose to discount the possibility of “Q”, by your same argument, you discount the possibility of an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew! Yes, I am quite familiar with the attestation from Papais. But what must also be understood is this: the Fragment of Papais is called a ***FRAGMENT ***for a reason! We don’t have the entire document, which makes it unreliable as a primary source without other attestations. Further, Papais suggests that what Matthew wrote in Aramaic (or Hebrew) were **SAYINGS **of Jesus. Accepting this statement at face value does not require a Matthean priority. Now, for the record, my personal opinion is that there ***WAS ***an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew, which is lost, and which may well have predated Mark. And further that this lost Proto-Matthew was a collection of the ***SAYINGS ***of Jesus, but is not Matthew in its present (read ACCEPTED AS CANONICAL) form, and that the Canonical, Greek Matthew which we DO have was completed after Mark.

Doesn’t Jerome cite a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew when he did his translation into the Vulgate?

Assumption 3: That Matthew was composed as early as the late '30’s to 40’s. There is just no evidence for this. Nothing textual, no hints in any other New Testament writing, no nothing.

I agree. I’ve always heard that Matthew was written after some of Paul’s first letters and are around the 50’s.

Assumption 4: Luke as the most literate man in Paul’s company. You don’t seem to have a high level of respect for Jewish literacy! Was Luke literate? Absolutely! So was Paul – the Pharisee, the Rabbi, schooled at the feet of Gamalial – one of the most brilliant men of his generation. About the other companions of Paul – we just don’t know. Again, this is an argument from silence.

This is another reasonable assumption, from what I understand. Luke’s Greek writing was considered far better than Paul’s for example. That was support the assumption that Luke was more literate.

Assumption 5: That Luke was written to Gentile converts. Both Luke and Acts were addressed to Theophilus (meaning “Lover of God”). This could have been to an individual interested in Christianity; it could have been written to a Gentile convert; it could be a general introduction to anyone who loves God.

But doesn’t Luke spend a deal of time explaining Jewish customs? Why would he need to do that to Jews?

 

[David_Zampino]

Thanks for your comments.

Isn’t Matthew the only one that we know of who was schooled? How much time do fishermen have for schooling? So, although it is an assumption, its an assumption that is not “grasping at straws”.

But see, that is part of the problem. We don’t know what level of education Peter, Andrew, James, and John had as fishermen, but I think that it would be dangerous is assume that they were illiterate. John certainly was not. (For that matter, I think that it would be dangerous to assume any Jewish male at the time of Jesus was illiterate, at least as far as the Scriptures were concerned!) And we really know virtually nothing about the prior backgrounds of the other Apostles. So while I’ll say that yes, Matthew was literate, the suggestion that he was the MOST literate is an assumption from silence, and therefore suspect when trying to draw a conclusion.

Doesn’t Jerome cite a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew when he did his translation into the Vulgate?

I’m not aware of it, but if you could find a source, I would be very greatly interested in it.

Even if Jerome did consult such a manuscript, it is the Greek Matthew which was considered canonical.

I agree. I’ve always heard that Matthew was written after some of Paul’s first letters and are around the 50’s.

This is the viewpoint most scholars who accept a Matthean priority would argue. The earliest argument I’ve ever seen made was in the notes of a very fundamentalist Baptist King James Bible, which suggested a date some 20 years following the Resurrection;

IThis is another reasonable assumption, from what I understand. Luke’s Greek writing was considered far better than Paul’s for example. That was support the assumption that Luke was more literate.

Again, I would suggest that this remains a difficult assumption to demonstrate. Yes, Luke’s Greek was superior to Paul’s, in that Paul wrote in ***Koine ***Greek, which was the trade language of the entire Mediterranean basin, while Luke’s Greek was much closer the classical Greek. The difference between the two is fairly significant. But it is not a demonstration of literacy. We could probably assume that Paul’s Hebrew was superior to Luke’s Hebrew! Difference in language and style does not necessarily presuppose a difference in literary levels.

All I’m saying is this: arguments or assumptions from silence are not very useful for drawing conclusions.

But doesn’t Luke spend a deal of time explaining Jewish customs? Why would he need to do that to Jews?

This is where I’ve been unclear. I never suggested that Luke was writing to the Jews. I did suggest that we are unsure as to the nature of the Gentiles in Luke’s target audience. In other words, we don’t know if Luke was trying to support and give information to a community (or individual) of Gentile believers, or if Luke was trying to provide information to a group (or individual) of Gentiles who had professed interest in Christianity but were not yet Christians.

Blessings,

BTW, where IS Sour Lake, TX?

 

[NotWorthy]

David, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,

BTW, where IS Sour Lake, TX?

Just outside of Beaumont on the very Southeastern tip of Texas. Maybe 2000 people live here.

Its the birth-place of Texaco.
The brine pits (hence the name, “Sour Lake”) used to be considered medicinal. FDR and other wealthy used to travel to Sour Lake to soak in the water.

 

[David_Zampino]

David, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.Just outside of Beaumont on the very Southeastern tip of Texas. Maybe 2000 people live here.

Its the birth-place of Texaco.
The brine pits (hence the name, “Sour Lake”) used to be considered medicinal. FDR and other wealthy used to travel to Sour Lake to soak in the water.

Wow! I learn something new every day!

Blessings,

 

[mackbrislawn]

David, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.Just outside of Beaumont on the very Southeastern tip of Texas. Maybe 2000 people live here.

Its the birth-place of Texaco.
The brine pits (hence the name, “Sour Lake”) used to be considered medicinal. FDR and other wealthy used to travel to Sour Lake to soak in the water.

There is also a Spanish Mustang breeder who lives a short distance to the north. Another distinction of Sour Lake!

 

[NotWorthy]

There is also a Spanish Mustang breeder who lives a short distance to the north. Another distinction of Sour Lake!

What does it matter what nationality the mustang breeder is?!?!?

 

[mackbrislawn]

What does it matter what nationality the mustang breeder is?!?!?

You got me there.

He’s a breeder of Spanish Mustangs. Now, the nationality of the Mustangs is important!

 

[annem]

NotWorthy

Doesn’t Jerome cite a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew when he did his translation into the Vulgate?

I believe both Jerome and Origen mention a gospel by Matthew written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It is not clear which, they just say something like, written in the language of the Jews. Apparently both had a copy. I believe other people mention this gospel as well, although nobody, anywhere, mentions the mythical Q. Does anyone out there have books that cite this? I will look it up if nobody else has a book on hand that mentions it.

Anyway,given clear mention of it by two of the people we know to have studied the early gospels intensely, and who were both true scholars, I cannot see any reason to doubt that there was a gospel by Matthew written in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Don’t you wish somebody would find a copy of it and the Hexapla? There’s GOT to be a garbage dump somewhere in the ancient world with copy!

God bless, Annem

 

[diggerdomer]

NotWorthy

I believe both Jerome and Origen mention a gospel by Matthew written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It is not clear which, they just say something like, written in the language of the Jews. Apparently both had a copy. I believe other people mention this gospel as well, although nobody, anywhere, mentions the mythical Q. Does anyone out there have books that cite this? I will look it up if nobody else has a book on hand that mentions it.

Anyway,given clear mention of it by two of the people we know to have studied the early gospels intensely, and who were both true scholars, I cannot see any reason to doubt that there was a gospel by Matthew written in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Don’t you wish somebody would find a copy of it and the Hexapla? There’s GOT to be a garbage dump somewhere in the ancient world with copy!

God bless, Annem

A Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic is every bit as much a theory as the hypothetical Q source.

 

[annem]

diggerdomer

A Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic is every bit as much a theory as the hypothetical Q source.
Reply With Quote

Yes, except that nobody mentioned Q in the ancient world. But we have clear mention of people who held in their hands, and read, a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew.

God bless, Annem

 

[David_Zampino]

NotWorthy

I believe both Jerome and Origen mention a gospel by Matthew written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It is not clear which, they just say something like, written in the language of the Jews. Apparently both had a copy. I believe other people mention this gospel as well, although nobody, anywhere, mentions the mythical Q. Does anyone out there have books that cite this? I will look it up if nobody else has a book on hand that mentions it.

I would be most interested in information regarding either source. I’ve studied both fairly extensively (Jerome more than Origen) and have not found this, but will readily admit that I could easily have missed it.

I would also be interested in the views of “other people” – like, who they were, when they lived, where they came from, etc.

Also, there is a difference from being aware of a source, and “having a copy”.

The “Q” source is a hypothesis, not a myth. There is a significant difference between the two!

Anyway,given clear mention of it by two of the people we know to have studied the early gospels intensely, and who were both true scholars, I cannot see any reason to doubt that there was a gospel by Matthew written in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Forgive me, perhaps I’ve missed something. NOBODY has given clear mention of ANYTHING! Only, “I believe that so-and-so cited something”!

Don’t you wish somebody would find a copy of it and the Hexapla? There’s GOT to be a garbage dump somewhere in the ancient world with copy!

YES!!! And we still have hope! Remeber, the Didache was lost until the just a few hundred years ago.

God bless, Annem

Likewise!

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

diggerdomer

Yes, except that nobody mentioned Q in the ancient world. But we have clear mention of people who held in their hands, and read, a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew.

God bless, Annem

No, actually, we don’t. We have two contributors to this thread who claim that this occurred. But we have seen no citations, no references, etc.

And since the “Q” source, if it existed, was quite possibly not a document but rather an oral tradition, we probably won’t find a copy of it either.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

Let’s talk about Papias for a moment.

I’ve got my copy out in front of me right now as I’m posting. My copy is a critical Catholic edition translated into English by James A. Kleist, SJ, PhD., sometime professor of Classical Languages at St. Louis University. The edition is volume 6 of the “Ancient Christian Writers – The Works of the Fathers in Translation” edited by Johannes Quasten, STD and Joseph C. Plumpe, PhD of the Catholic University of America. The volume was published in 1948 by Paulist Press/Newman Press under the Imprimatur of Patricus A. O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington, DC.

I recite all this so as to forestall the critique that I may be using a “liberal, German, Protestant” source! My source is Catholic, with an Imprimatur, edited by Fr. Quasten, widely recognized as one of the top Patristic scholars of the last 200 years. It was published late enough so that the translator was aware of some of the more liberal trends in higher criticism, but early enough so that he was not infected by some of the modern silliness we see in (sadly) too many Catholic scholars.

We know that Papias existed; that he lived in the late 1st through early 2nd centuries; that he was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, and that he knew the Apostle John. We know that he wrote a five-volume “Exegesis of the Lord’s Gospel” – and that this document has been lost. We know that this document was an “interpretation” or “running commentary” based on his knowledge of the early Church and the early disciples of Jesus. Papias was also known as the first (extant) proponent of “chiliasm” or “millenarianism”. Eusebius characterized him as “a man of very mediocre intelligence”.

But what do we have exactly?

13 isolated fragments, of which none are primary, but all are reconstructed from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century references. 8 of these fragments are no more than a single paragraph in length. The authenticity of some of these fragments have been considered by some experts to be questionable.

For those of us who have difficulty with the idea of “Q” being an oral source, it must be noted that Papias considered oral information to be more trustworthy than the written word.

To be continued . . .

 

[David_Zampino]

Part two:

What Papias ACTUALLY SAYS about Mark and Matthew. I quote directly from Fragment 2, paragraphs 15 and 16, as recorded by Eusebius, in his history (3.39)

***15 “This, too, the presbyter said: When Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down, though by no means verbatim, as much as he accurately remembered of the words and works of the Lord; for he had neither heard the Lord nor been in His company; but he subsequently joined Peter, as I said. Now, Peter did not intend to give a complete exposition of the Lord’s ministry, but delivered his instructions to meet the needs of the moment. It follows, then, that Mark was guilty of no blunder if he wrote, simply to the the best of his recollections, an incomplete account. For of one matter he took forethought – not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify the account in any detail.” This account, then, is the result of Papias’s inquiries about Mark.

16 Concerning Matthew he has made the following statement: “Matthew, at any rate, used the Hebrew language in his exposition of the Gospel, and each one translated it as best he could.”***

That’s it!

That’s the entire statement!

We have a 4th century source (which has survived) quoting a 2nd century source (which has not survived) regarding a “Hebrew language” text which has also not survived!

The translator points out that at the time Papias was writing, the Greek Matthew was already in circulation (not surprising). And it is the Greek Matthew which is considered Canonical – a key point, I believe!

Once again, I repeat, with complete earnestness, that if someone can locate a reference by Origen or Jerome (or anyone else, for that matter) which refers specifically to a “Hebrew language” Matthew, please post it.

Blessings,

 

[chaunceygardner]

That is a difficult question, and one that has been asked for almost the entire time of Christianity. People, well-meaning as they may have been, said 100 or 200 years after the fact who wrote the gospels. Little written record to go on. It would be like me saying that I KNOW George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. You should rightly say, “show me the evidence, the proof”. There just isn’t any proof on who wrote the Gospels.

And the Gospels themselves don’t really tell us. Three of the gospels do not have any attribution-they do not give the author’s name.

What does the Church today say about this question. In the New American Bible, the intros for each gospel plainly state that we don’t know who the authors are. This is in agreement with biblical scholarship over the past 150 years. The NAB says that the belief that Matthew is the author of that gospel is “untenable”, and calls the author “unknown”. They say that Mark is anonymous, and that the Gospel of John was written by more than one person (part written earlier, other parts added later). Luke is “not part of the first generation of disciples”, and that is clearly stated at the start of his gospel.

One other problem is the word “wrote”. The great likelihood is that all or almost all of the 12 apostles were illiterate. Some may have been able to read, but probably could not write. 2000 years ago you didn’t need to be literate to be a fisherman, nor would they have had the wealth, time or opportunity to learn those skills. Everything they were taught was likely orally, and that is also how the stories of Jesus were first transmitted.

A third problem is language. The disciples would know Aramic and Hebrew but the earliest copies we have are all in Greek.

A fourth problem is timing. It is generally accepted that the dates of the current versions of our gospels date from the latter part of the first century. If Jesus was crucified around the year 30, and the gospels were put on paper/scrolls between the years 65-90, those original 12 would have likely been dead by then.

So our gospels were written by disciples of the second or third generation, by people who recorded the words passed down by some of the 12 and committed to memory, at different places and different times. That would help in explaining the many discrepancies between their stories.

The reason the gospels have names of disciples closely connected to the time of Jesus is to show legitimacy. Not too many people would put much stock in the Gospel of Henry, if we could not connect Henry to Jesus. There were other writings from the early church that were not included in the Canon for just that reason. The gospel of John could have been based on what the disciple John said and taught, but it would have been written by someone from his community, and likely after his death.

Some people don’t like to hear this, but it should not alter your faith. It does not change any core beliefs, or the reason Jesus walked among us. To me it shows the strength of faith in these early Christian communities to keep the Word alive and growing in the midst of struggle and persecution.

 

[paul_c]

That is a difficult question, and one that has been asked for almost the entire time of Christianity. People, well-meaning as they may have been, said 100 or 200 years after the fact who wrote the gospels. Little written record to go on. It would be like me saying that I KNOW George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. You should rightly say, “show me the evidence, the proof”. There just isn’t any proof on who wrote the Gospels.

And the Gospels themselves don’t really tell us. Three of the gospels do not have any attribution-they do not give the author’s name.

What does the Church today say about this question. In the New American Bible, the intros for each gospel plainly state that we don’t know who the authors are. This is in agreement with biblical scholarship over the past 150 years. The NAB says that the belief that Matthew is the author of that gospel is “untenable”, and calls the author “unknown”. They say that Mark is anonymous, and that the Gospel of John was written by more than one person (part written earlier, other parts added later). Luke is “not part of the first generation of disciples”, and that is clearly stated at the start of his gospel.

One other problem is the word “wrote”. The great likelihood is that all or almost all of the 12 apostles were illiterate. Some may have been able to read, but probably could not write. 2000 years ago you didn’t need to be literate to be a fisherman, nor would they have had the wealth, time or opportunity to learn those skills. Everything they were taught was likely orally, and that is also how the stories of Jesus were first transmitted.

A third problem is language. The disciples would know Aramic and Hebrew but the earliest copies we have are all in Greek.

A fourth problem is timing. It is generally accepted that the dates of the current versions of our gospels date from the latter part of the first century. If Jesus was crucified around the year 30, and the gospels were put on paper/scrolls between the years 65-90, those original 12 would have likely been dead by then.

So our gospels were written by disciples of the second or third generation, by people who recorded the words passed down by some of the 12 and committed to memory, at different places and different times. That would help in explaining the many discrepancies between their stories.

The reason the gospels have names of disciples closely connected to the time of Jesus is to show legitimacy. Not too many people would put much stock in the Gospel of Henry, if we could not connect Henry to Jesus. There were other writings from the early church that were not included in the Canon for just that reason. The gospel of John could have been based on what the disciple John said and taught, but it would have been written by someone from his community, and likely after his death.

Some people don’t like to hear this, but it should not alter your faith. It does not change any core beliefs, or the reason Jesus walked among us. To me it shows the strength of faith in these early Christian communities to keep the Word alive and growing in the midst of struggle and persecution.

Be careful about stating that the gospels were written definitively by disciples of the second or third generation. This is opinion, not fact. And I know what the introduction says about Matthew in NAB, but as you can see from this thread, it is not required belief, nor is it as definitive as the editors of NAB make it seem. And you are right that the authorship of the bibles does not matter if you are willing to accept them as inspired on faith. But if you are not willing to do so, the case for apostolic inspiration is much better if they were actually written by the Apostles.