That is my understanding. The CC is concerned with the reliability of the Gospels and, to a lesser extent, their approximate date of creation, with the fact that they were produced by very early Christians who knew their subject.“Q” is a theory. Catholics are free to accept it or not. It may or may not have existed. It is just a theory. If it helps you, great, if not, forget about it. Catholics are also free to accept a variety of theories regarding authorship of Scripture books (as long as we accept, of course, that one of the authors is God/Holy Spirit). Whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or not, either is ok. Whether Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or one of his followers did, is ok. We have to believe that all Scripture is inspired, and true. And for the New Testament, that the authors were all Apostles or those who were taught by the Apostles.
Thanks for the references.Hi, I thought I might clarify. There has been an explosion of research into oral cultures, how knowledge is transmitted in oral cultures, and the reliability of such knowledge in the last twenty years, which pretty much tosses out all the old guesses done by Bultmann… A good summation of that research is found in the book “The Jesus Legend” by Eddy. Actually, the gospels follow ancient standards for history telling. The emphasis is on eyewitness testimony, by far and away considered the most reliable in ancient times. A good book by a very fine scholar on this subject is “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”. Richard Burridge, a very famous scholar, published a book called “What Are the Gospels” recently–well, in the 90’s. I think. The book proves, according to most, that the gospels fall in the 'bios" genre.
What you are describing is Eusebius’ The History of the Church, written in about 325 AD and covering the entire history from Christ to that point. You should check it out.Thanks for the references.
Just to be clear, I don’t think anyone here is advancing a theory that the Gospels are somehow inauthentic or unreliable. It is unnecessary to know the author to have convidence in their reliability.
By comparison, if you read a court transcript you can be pretty sure it’s an accurate record of the proceedings even if you have no clue as to who the stenographer was.
Regarding my comment on the lack of interest in history, I was referring to the lack of writings about the writers. In fact, other than Acts, we have precious little early Church history. To see what is missing, imagine if Acts continued through to Constantine telling the story of the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel and the dispersion of Christians and Jews from Israel.
Yeah, that one’s on my reading list. But Euseibus was really the first since Luke to make this effort. It’s unsurprising, if you think about it, but unfortunate nonetheless.What you are describing is Eusebius’ The History of the Church, written in about 325 AD and covering the entire history from Christ to that point. You should check it out.
Yes, that is another very serious problem with him though more theological than historical I would think.Yes, and do a background check on the book as well, as Eusebious admitted that when he wrote that book he omitted all those items that would discredit the Church and her rulers and magnified those things that would exalt her. Even as early as 170CE Dionysius of Corinth complained that his own writings were being altered, but took solace in that the same fate was befalling the gospels.
Aren’t all of these Gospels referenced in 2nd century, such as by St. Irenaeus?I have some doubts on the legibility of gospels. May I express my doubts in the light of the publising of Codex Sinaictus by British library. This is regarded as the oldest surviving copy of gospel. It is said that Emperor Constantine in 3rd century ordered to create 50 copies of the gospels. When I discussed about gospels with my friend he said this can be something which was wisely formulated in the Roman empire. He does not believe that it comes from the first century. He said gospels are something cleverly formulated in the 3rd century by roman emperors. I may need something from the viewers on my point.
We’re straying off topic here but I generally agree with you. But it’s less a Big Bang than a black hole. We have the gospels and Acts and epistles. The apostles and early disciples were very prolific. Then, for a couple centures, very little, just a letter here and there that we strain to see circumstances through.I’m thinking it is very difficult to tease the two out. The early Church, as far as both history and theology, is kind of like the Big Bang. The closer back to the origin you get, the more difficult it is to accurately assess what happened. That is why, despite my absolute convictions regarding God and Sonship, I have grave doubts about some of the interpretations that have been put forth, claims of higher guidance notwithstanding. There is a cloud of considertons surrounding those times, the elements of which are usually not exhaustively enumerated in most histories. For my part, despite my understanding, I like to have it all on the table,
What I had hoped you’d find even more helpful than just the list of names is the corresponding 9 pages of text in the accompanying link… since 9 pages is more than will fit in a single postThanks for the list of names. That’s very helpful.
Two lines earlier you should have seen “(official title of the Vatican’s English translation: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation – Dei Verbum)”.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Verbum
Literally, “word of God”. Not a magisterial declaration of authorship.
Note that this is a magisterial declaration that at least two of the Gospels (note the use of the plural in the original document) were written by Apostles themselves.In Chapter V under the heading “The New Testament” the Constitution states among other points:
18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior. The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Indeed it is! But it does not necessarily follow that your interpretation of Dei Verbum holds magisterial authority! It seems to me that you are trying to elevate your opinion (a permitted viewpoint, to be sure – but not a mandated one) to the level of doctrine.Dei Verbum is from the Magisterium.
Catholics are not free to accept any theory that disavows Apostolic authorship of at least two of the Gospels.“Q” is a theory. Catholics are free to accept it or not. It may or may not have existed. It is just a theory. If it helps you, great, if not, forget about it.
Catholics are also free to accept a variety of theories regarding authorship of Scripture books (as long as we accept, of course, that one of the authors is God/Holy Spirit). Whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or not, either is ok. Whether Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or one of his followers did, is ok.
We have to believe that all Scripture is inspired, and true. And for the New Testament, that the authors were all Apostles or those who were taught by the Apostles.
Papias (c. 60-139) was the bishop of Hieropolis. Eusebius said Papias wrote five books and mentions his commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John. Ancient Armenian literature records Papias writing commentaries on Luke and John ((RO 171)). Papias had carefully studied at least three of the Gospels. Hieropolis was close to the Christian centres at Colossae and Laodicea, and about one hundred and fifty kilometres from Ephesus along a good surfaced road. So contact with John the Apostle would have been easy. No doubt John took a great interest in Papias as he
trained to be a bishop, and afterwards gave him good advice. His life span overlapped that of John by 30-40 years and Papias speaks ofThe Presbyter, who traditionally has been identified as John the Apostle. An extract from the fourth book by Papias and preserved by Eusebius reads:
And this the Presbyter used to say: “Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord’s sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them”. This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthews this was said: “For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able”`. ((EH 3: 39, 8 and RO 166r)).
Here we have Papias quoting John the Apostles words in defence of the style of the Gospel of Mark. So thepoor Greekof Mark is not something first noticed in the 18th century. The extract,… the Presbyter used to say, being in the plural, shows that aspects of Marks gospel had to be repeatedly defended by John the Apostle against criticism.
…
Irenaeus was born about 120 AD near Smyrna. After travelling throughout the Roman
world gaining a wide knowledge of Christian life and history, he was made bishop of Lyons and martyred about 180 AD. As a young man he frequented the house of bishop Polycarp in Smyrna. In a letter to Florinus, he wrote regarding his childhood:
`… I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people, also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever thing he had learned from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and his teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures … ((See newadvent.org web site: Fathers: Irenaeus: Fragments from lost writings of Irenaeus, item II and IJK 540)).
In the first chapter of his third book in the series known asAdversus Haereses, Irenaeus records that the apostles of Christ preached the Gospel verbally. He then continues:
Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia. ((RO 128-9: IAH 3. 1,1; and EH 5: 8, 2)).
This quotation above comes from the Latin translation of his work. But we also possess the same passage in the original Greek as quoted by Eusebius. This confirms the Latin translation is accurate.
Thus, for Mark to have “handed on the traditions taught by Peter when he was still alive” Mark (obviously) had to have written his Gospel well before Peter’s martyrdom in 64!The Latin version may imply that Irenaeus was thinking that Mark and Luke wrote after the death of Peter. However, the perfect tense used in the Greek version makes it clear that this is not so. Irenaeus was merely saying that the gospels of Mark and Luke have handed on the traditions taught by Peter and Paul when they were still alive ((RO 163)).
Orchard sees Matthew as having written for the Jews of Palestine, and Luke for the Gentiles of Asia. As Luke had not been an eyewitness of the ministry of Christ, Paul asked Peter to endorse the Gospel composed by Luke. Peter did this by giving a series of talks blending together Matthew and Luke, while adding memories and comments of his own. As Mark took down the talks verbatim they contained the blemishes one finds in unedited speech. Orchard has explained his thesis:
Our thesis that Peter was going to restrict his testimony to what he could vouch for by his own personal memories of the Ministry, is supported by his omission of Lukes birth narratives, Central Section, Resurrection stories, and his omission of all that Luke himself has left out of the six composite Matthean Discourses.
He reinstates Lukes Great Omission (Mt 14:22 - 16:12), and furthermore reintroduces a few Matthean stories omitted by Luke, such as the pericope about divorce (Mt 19:3 - 9), and adds a few stories of his own. This leads us to formulate the following hypothesis regarding Peters handling of Luke as follows:
On this hypothesis Peter`s principal aim was to authenticate the text of Luke; and he decided to use the occasion to add individual comments of his own, prompted by his own personal memories, and his intimate knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew which had been circulating in the Church for at least twenty years as a handbook. He therefore concentrates on following Luke in order, pericope by pericope, as closely as his own personal memories will permit. He holds open the scroll of Luke, but the scroll of Matthew is also within reach, though he can quote word for word by heart whenever he wants to.
And so whilst steadily following the order of Luke he feels entirely free either to vary the wording of Luke in favour of Matthews text, or to introduce his own variant of Matthew, in virtue of his being the eyewitness of the events he is describing. At the same time he has no problem in agreeing to follow Lukes alternative arrangement of the stories in Mt 3:1 – 13:58, nor does he need as a general rule to refer to the scroll of Matthew while he follows Luke freely and even conflates it with Matthew`. ((BOA 388-389)).
Harold Riley, an associate of Orchard, stresses the ongoing nature of this conflation. Marks gospel keeps going forward when borrowing from the other two. He never retraces his steps by rolling the scrolls backwards. So stories of the Centurions servant and the messengers of the Baptist are omitted. To find them, Peter would have had to wind back the scroll ((RO 11)). In one place only is there a change in order and it is significant that this is at Luke 6: 12-19. The lines of Matthew and Luke are so close together Peter could see them at the same time. Rolling back was not required. Orchard suggests Peter gave five talks. TheTon the chart indicates where he judges each to commence ((RO 269-272)).
I’m not interpreting Dei Verbum, I’m merely quoting from it. Therefore, there should be no possibility of confusing what Dei Verbum says with what I (or anyone else) say.Indeed it is! But it does not necessarily follow that your interpretation of Dei Verbum holds magisterial authority! It seems to me that you are trying to elevate your opinion (a permitted viewpoint, to be sure – but not a mandated one) to the level of doctrine.
Bubba,We’re straying off topic here but I generally agree with you. But it’s less a Big Bang than a black hole. We have the gospels and Acts and epistles. The apostles and early disciples were very prolific. Then, for a couple centures, very little, just a letter here and there that we strain to see circumstances through.
However, in terms of interpretation, this really began with Paul and it is pretty much out in the open thanks to his letters and Acts. So in spite of the historical dead zone, we can see a general trajectory.
I don’t think the topic of this thread is a red herring, it’s just a very narrow technical one by comparison to what you are interested in exploring. Obviously there are some in this thread who care very deeply about their opinions on who, precisely, wrote the Gospels.I just think that such as the thread question is somewhat of a red herring across the trail of what are we doing with our own thinking about these things.
I think everyone knows that the Christian record is incomplete. Every history is incomplete. You can always raise questions that the sources don’t answer because people are primarily interested in living live and only secondarily (at best) in recording it for posterity. The early Christians had their hands quite full with other things than keeping the minutes. We just have to work with what we’ve got.Unless we find another cache like Nag Hammadi or the DSS, we are pretty much replete with whatever info we have. And, are we being told everything pertinent to the Gosples that might have been revealed by studies of those two finds, including authorship? I hear not. But even then, there are ideas in those libraries that cast doubt on the completeness of the orthodox interpretations of the Church, particularly in the arena of exoteric vs exoteric aspects of the original Teaching.
Q does not even contradict that unless by “authorship” you mean writing unaided from scratch. You are trying to impose a modern concept of authorship on a situation where it may not apply. Plaigerism was not a crime at that time.Catholics are not free to accept any theory that disavows Apostolic authorship of at least two of the Gospels.
Yes, I’ve looked through those. It’s better than nothing but it doesn’t even compare well with Acts for covering events; these must be inferred. What happened to the Jewish Christians through the Jewish/Roman wars between the end of Acts and the end of the Bar Kohba rebelion? Nobody knows.there actually is a significant amount of continuity of records for the church between Acts and Eusebius. There were several apologetic documents of great detail covering those intervening 200 years. Here are some of them from the web: earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html Considering the church was underground for this entire period, there is a lot out there.