Who Wrote the Four Gospels?

[Evan]

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.

This is Jeromes Quote

The Four Gospels

Addressed to Pope Damasus, a.d. 383.

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead.

Now by returning to the fountainhead, did Jerome mean he was going to use the copy in the Language of the Hebrews in creating the Vulgate? That is not crystal clear, but that could be held as an understanding of what is written here.

 

[Erich]

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

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

New Testament scholar Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (which, of course, are datable before 70 or 79).

Needless to say, this redating was (and still is) rather controversial.

 

[SFH]

I recently read in another thread that we don’t really know who wrote the four Gospels (not referring to the non-canonical gospels). I guess I have always taken it for granted that there was ample evidence to support the namesakes of the Gospels, at a minimum Luke and John.

Who do the folks here believe wrote the four Gospels and can you support your position with evidence?

The earliest written evidence is an extract from the writings of Papias that Eusebius put in his Ecclesiastical History. Papias claims that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and Mark wrote his gospel in Greek based on the sermons of Peter. Most Catholic biblical scholars now believe that Papias was probably correct. Matthew in Aramaic, then Mark in Greek, then Matthew in Greek (combining Matthew in Aramaic and Mark), then Luke, then John.

There is more than ample evidence to support this view. Luke’s gospel uses medical terms to distinguish the different types of leprosy, the needle through which the camel passes is a surgical needle, etc. Mark’s gospel incorporates references that make it plain he was writing for a Roman audiance (e.g., Christ prohibits the wife from divorcing her husband – she couldn’t even seek divorce in Hebrew society).

 

[David_Zampino]

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.

I agree with Paul C. here. He and I disagree on certain points (as can be seen throughout this thread).

I have little confidence in the editors/commentators of the NAB – as, I might add, did the Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger – who threw serious criticism against the editors, not the translators, but the editors of the NAB.

 

[David_Zampino]

This is Jeromes Quote

The Four Gospels

Addressed to Pope Damasus, a.d. 383.

Now by returning to the fountainhead, did Jerome mean he was going to use the copy in the Language of the Hebrews in creating the Vulgate? That is not crystal clear, but that could be held as an understanding of what is written here.

Evan,

Thanks for the comment. Can you produce the reference for the text? I would greatly appreciate it.

And I agree, that if the statement represents exactly what you say about it, it is certainly not “crystal clear”. But it WOULD be MOST informative!

Please, PLEASE, send any information toward my direction!

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

New Testament scholar Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (which, of course, are datable before 70 or 79).

Needless to say, this redating was (and still is) rather controversial.

I looked him up. Yes, he was a scholar of some repute.

Yes, his conclusions were controversial.

Please explain, though, how this pertains to the Clementine theory.

Also, please address the very specific points I’ve made over the last 48 hours.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

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.

Paul,

I tend to agree with your statement here.

However, I would be GREATLY interested in your response to my very detailed comments over the last 3 days.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

The earliest written evidence is an extract from the writings of Papias that Eusebius put in his Ecclesiastical History. Papias claims that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and Mark wrote his gospel in Greek based on the sermons of Peter. Most Catholic biblical scholars now believe that Papias was probably correct. Matthew in Aramaic, then Mark in Greek, then Matthew in Greek (combining Matthew in Aramaic and Mark), then Luke, then John.

There is more than ample evidence to support this view. Luke’s gospel uses medical terms to distinguish the different types of leprosy, the needle through which the camel passes is a surgical needle, etc. Mark’s gospel incorporates references that make it plain he was writing for a Roman audiance (e.g., Christ prohibits the wife from divorcing her husband – she couldn’t even seek divorce in Hebrew society).

I quoted the text from Papias directly. Here, on this forum, in a critical CATHOLIC text.

What you suggest, you do not support. Please define “Most Catholic biblical scholars”.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I suspect that the notion of a Hebrew or Aramaic “Proto-Matthew” is quite likely.

BUT, Papias did not suggest an order in Gospel writing.

I would strongly advise you to check the text itself.

 

[chaunceygardner]

The earliest written evidence is an extract from the writings of Papias that Eusebius put in his Ecclesiastical History. Papias claims that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and Mark wrote his gospel in Greek based on the sermons of Peter. Most Catholic biblical scholars now believe that Papias was probably correct. Matthew in Aramaic, then Mark in Greek, then Matthew in Greek (combining Matthew in Aramaic and Mark), then Luke, then John.

There is more than ample evidence to support this view. Luke’s gospel uses medical terms to distinguish the different types of leprosy, the needle through which the camel passes is a surgical needle, etc. Mark’s gospel incorporates references that make it plain he was writing for a Roman audiance (e.g., Christ prohibits the wife from divorcing her husband – she couldn’t even seek divorce in Hebrew society).

Whoa, Whoa. Different types of Leprosy? A surgical Needle? Please show me where that is, because I can’t find those verses. Luke’s Gospel does not identify the author. It is assumed by some that it is the Luke from Acts. In that case, Luke is recording information from Paul, who was not a follower of Jesus during his ministry, or from others who told him about Jesus. But we just don’t know if it was someone named Luke, and if it was the same Luke as in Acts. The beginning of his gospel clearly points out that he is not an eyewitness but is passing on information provided by others.

We don’t know which Mark wrote that gospel, or if it was anyone named Mark. There are some writings, really guesses, from hundreds of years after the fact, that connect various writings to specific people. Now tradition may be right, and the gospels were certainly based on the words “handed down” from original Apostles, but we just don’t know who or how much changed along the way, or the route they took. The best we have are some educated guesses and suppositions.

So just accept it and move on. Instead of worrying about who actually “wrote” a gospel (likely a scribe recording oral tradition) think about what they tell you, what Jesus is saying to you in them, what He expects of you, what you need to do to attain the heavenly kingdom. That’s what’s important.

 

[buffalo]

Anyone know if this is legit? I didn’t know there was anything this early? Where is it located? WHo has it?

 

[David_Zampino]

Anyone know if this is legit? I didn’t know there was anything this early? Where is it located? WHo has it?

Questionable – at best.

And I speak as one who greatly appreciates the Aramaic. The “Aramaic Bible” published over the last several decades by the Liturgical Press (a CATHOLIC publishing house) is a wonderful Old Testament reference.

But that’s it. A reference. Not a primary source.

Blessings,

 

[buffalo]

Questionable – at best.

And I speak as one who greatly appreciates the Aramaic. The “Aramaic Bible” published over the last several decades by the Liturgical Press (a CATHOLIC publishing house) is a wonderful Old Testament reference.

But that’s it. A reference. Not a primary source.

Blessings,

So it was translated back from which one?

This is what it says:

Testament of Matthew
This translation of the Testament of Matthew from the original Ancient Aramaic Texts of the Ancient Church of the East Bible is dedicated to my mother Margaret.

 

[paul_c]

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

Well what I meant was that it made sense to me…

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.

I think its a fair assumption but you are right, it is possible that one of the others COULD have been more literate. The point I was trying to make is that it made sense that Matthew, as a literate tax collector, would have been chosen to write the first gospel.

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.

Well, as you can see from the last three days of writings, there is some historical record of the Hebrew Matthew. There is non for Q.

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?

I don’t know whether James or the author of Hebrews would have mentioned the Gospel. They were writing about specific issues so the absence of mention of a Gospel doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. I’ve seen other speculation that Matthew’s gospel could have been from a pretty early date and it would make sense to me that one of the apostles would have written down what they remembered fairly early in the game. After all, everyone’s view of the date is speculatory at this point. The earliest fragment we’ve heard discussed is 60 AD.

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.

This is not a matter of lack of respect for Jewish literacy. And I agree that this is speculation, but I think you would agree that its not without some basis. Luke’s Greek is the best in the new testament, is it not?

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.

I didn’t think this would be controversial. After all, I think its generally accepted that his Gospel was not written for the Jewish audience like Matthews was. It explains things that any Jewish reader would already know while miinimizing the focus on Jewish scripture.

 

[paul_c]

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.

I fall on my sword on this one. I said it was dated in the late 50s because it must preceed the death of Paul. I will accept that it could have been in the early 60s.

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! .

I don’t know what you want from me. I said what I believed to be true. It makes sense from the text that Mary was the source of the Infancy narratives. After all, he says that Mary kept all this in her heart.

 

[paul_c]

Part Two:

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.

Fair enough. My point was that he know what both taught and he knew all the players.

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.

Did you read the attachment in this post. I found it very interesting
:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5436817&postcount=45

 

[annem]

from annem

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.

David Zampino

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!

Hi, I have been scrambling through my books. This is what I could come up with quickly, which is from Redating Matthew Mark & Luke by Wenham.

The quote from Papias which other people have noted, then
"Irenaeus "Matthew indeed among the Hebrews in their own dialect put forth also a writing of the gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome…
Origen… Matthew…published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language
Eusebius…Matthew…transmitted in writing in his native tongue, the Gospel…
Epiphanius…says of the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans 'they have the Gospel according to Matthew complete and in Hebrew…
Cyril of Jerusalem…Matthew…wrote…it in the Hebrew tongue…
Jerome…Matthew…published a gospel in the Hebrew tongue…(also).,Matthew…in Hebrew words and letters…that afterwards translated it into Greek…Further the Hebrew itself is preserved up to the present day in the library of Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr very diligently collected. I had leave also given me to copy it…

Similar testimonies are found in Gregory of Nanzianus, Chryssotom, Augustine,and in Syrian and Coptic other…

Wenham points out that some scholars believe we have actually have the original Matthew…that the medieval "Hebrew Matthew found in the Even Bohan of c. 1380 was not…a translation of its Jewish author Shem-Tob, but an original composition …(pages 117-119)

This is what I can come up with on short notice. But Jerome apparently did claim to have had a copy of it.

What other information do other people have? Anybody out there have more information?

God bless, Annem

 

[David_Zampino]

from annem

David Zampino

Hi, I have been scrambling through my books. This is what I could come up with quickly, which is from Redating Matthew Mark & Luke by Wenham.

The quote from Papias which other people have noted, then
"Irenaeus "Matthew indeed among the Hebrews in their own dialect put forth also a writing of the gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome…
Origen… Matthew…published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language
Eusebius…Matthew…transmitted in writing in his native tongue, the Gospel…
Epiphanius…says of the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans 'they have the Gospel according to Matthew complete and in Hebrew…
Cyril of Jerusalem…Matthew…wrote…it in the Hebrew tongue…
Jerome…Matthew…published a gospel in the Hebrew tongue…(also).,Matthew…in Hebrew words and letters…that afterwards translated it into Greek…Further the Hebrew itself is preserved up to the present day in the library of Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr very diligently collected. I had leave also given me to copy it…

Similar testimonies are found in Gregory of Nanzianus, Chryssotom, Augustine,and in Syrian and Coptic other…

Wenham points out that some scholars believe we have actually have the original Matthew…that the medieval "Hebrew Matthew found in the Even Bohan of c. 1380 was not…a translation of its Jewish author Shem-Tob, but an original composition …(pages 117-119)

This is what I can come up with on short notice. But Jerome apparently did claim to have had a copy of it.

What other information do other people have? Anybody out there have more information?

God bless, Annem

THANKS!!! I greatly appreciate this.

The point in which I am most interested in, is the citation from Jerome. Can you pin that down for me? The others all seem to be citing the same fragment from Papias. As you probably know, the fragments of Papias which have survived, have all survived as citations from other sources (such as many of the examples presented here.)

The citation from Jerome is of supreme interest, as Jerome, nearly alone among the 4th century Biblical scholars, was a Hebrew scholar.

Thanks!

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

Fair enough. My point was that he know what both taught and he knew all the players.

Did you read the attachment in this post. I found it very interesting
:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5436817&postcount=45

As I’ve said to Erich, I don’t find his source to be particularly credible. He has an opinion, for which he argues passionately, but a passionate argument is not necessarily a well-reasoned, or well-informed argument. Certainly Mr. Barton is entitled to his opinion, and his opinion does not appear to be heretical – but neither is it doctrinal, binding, etc. And even among conservative Biblical scholars – it is a controversial opinion. Trying to portray anyone who accepts Markan scholarship as a liberal, modernist, progressive, etc. is just factually inaccurate.

 

[paul_c]

As I’ve said to Erich, I don’t find his source to be particularly credible. He has an opinion, for which he argues passionately, but a passionate argument is not necessarily a well-reasoned, or well-informed argument. Certainly Mr. Barton is entitled to his opinion, and his opinion does not appear to be heretical – but neither is it doctrinal, binding, etc. And even among conservative Biblical scholars – it is a controversial opinion. Trying to portray anyone who accepts Markan scholarship as a liberal, modernist, progressive, etc. is just factually inaccurate.

Well, as we’ve already discussed, there is no authorship theory that is doctrinal or binding. Nor is there much in the way of hard proof. What we do know definitively is:

The gospel authors have been consistently referred to As Matthew, Mark, Luke and John throughout history despite no direct attributions in the scripts other than St. John’s gospel and even that isn’t fully explicit.
We know that the order of the Gospels in the Bible has also been consistently held since Jerome.

To me, its hard to argue against tradition, unless there is a really, really good reason to do so. I haven’t seen anything in the new scholarship that qualifies in this way because all of it is based on assumptions that can not be proven any more than the assumptions that I have brought forward.

 

[David_Zampino]

Well, as we’ve already discussed, there is no authorship theory that is doctrinal or binding. Nor is there much in the way of hard proof. What we do know definitively is:

For the record, I do not dispute, and have not disputed the traditional authorship of the Gospels. The original thrust of this thread seems to have moved from authorship to when the authors wrote, and what source material they might have used.

The gospel authors have been consistently referred to As Matthew, Mark, Luke and John throughout history despite no direct attributions in the scripts other than St. John’s gospel and even that isn’t fully explicit.
We know that the order of the Gospels in the Bible has also been consistently held since Jerome.

I am in full agreement here.

To me, its hard to argue against tradition, unless there is a really, really good reason to do so. I haven’t seen anything in the new scholarship that qualifies in this way because all of it is based on assumptions that can not be proven any more than the assumptions that I have brought forward.

This is where you and I would part ways. (And, I’m afraid that you would part ways with Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, etc.)

I do not argue against Tradition, as in Sacred Tradition. But used with a small “t” as in tradition or traditions, there has ALWAYS been argument, even amongst Church Fathers. And not infrequently, those arguments about tradition lead to Sacred Tradition. At that point, the decision is binding on the faithful.

But merely citing “the Fathers” or “tradition” is a shaky argument. Peter Abelard got on the nerves of a lot of medieval theologians with his work “Sic et Non” in which he (repeatedly) cites Church Fathers arguing on both sides of issues! (Of course, he got on people’s nerves for other reasons as well . . . but that’s a whole other thread!)

Blessings,