Who Wrote the Four Gospels?

[David_Zampino]

This thread seems to be moving in a number of different directions.

For the record (for what my views are worth!):

1. I (and seemingly most people in this discussion) have no quarrel with the traditional authorship of the Gospels, Matthew and John being actual apostles, Mark being a disciple of both Paul and Peter, and Luke being a disciple of Paul. As Erich (and others) has pointed out, the testimony of the Early Church regarding the authenticity is early, widespread, and very clear.
2. My first point notwithstanding, I also have no difficulty with the concept that the Gospels did undergo some editing in the immediate generations following their writing. This is most clear in the long ending of Mark, and the double-ending of John. Editing by a disciple of the author does not undermine the legitimacy of the author.
3. The fragment from Papias is not, in and of itself demonstration of Matthean priority. It tells us that that Matthew wrote (in Hebrew or Aramaic) the ***sayings ***of Jesus. Unfortunately that Hebrew (or Aramaic) text is long-lost. I will readily accept that a “proto-Matthew” predated a completed Mark. But Matthew’s Gospel, as accepted as canonical, is a Greek text which the vast majority of scholars **(Catholic *AND *Protestant, Conservative *AND *Liberal) **date as having been completed after Mark.
4. The “Q” hypothesis is really a series of many different hypotheses noting similarity between Matthew and Luke with regard to material not found in Mark. Belief in the “Q” hypothesis is neither required, nor is it forbidden.
5. It is also indisputable that questions regarding authorship of some of the books of the New Testament existed in the Early Church – and exist to this day. As late as the 4th century, there were strong disputes regarding Hebrews, Jude, James, II Peter, II and III John and Revelation.
6. The authorship of Hebrews was most fiercely debated in the West, while the authorship of Revelation was most fiercely debated in the East. The question as to whether John the Apostle was the same as John the Elder was a vigorous 4th century debate (and, in some circles, remains so to this day.) For the record, I’ll argue that the author of both the Gospel, the Letters, and Revelation was the Apostle.

At the end of the day, the issue is this: The Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God as defined by the Church and as given by the Authority of the Church. Questions of date of writing and (in some cases) authorship have existed from the time of the Early Church, and continue to exist to this day. And this is fine. But these questions, as interesting as they might be, should never cause us to lose sight of the authoritative nature of the sacred text itself.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

At the end of the day, the issue is this: The Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God as defined by the Church and as given by the Authority of the Church. Questions of date of writing and (in some cases) authorship have existed from the time of the Early Church, and continue to exist to this day. And this is fine. But these questions, as interesting as they might be, should never cause us to lose sight of the authoritative nature of the sacred text itself.

Great summary. I think the one point missing from it is that there may have been “editing” and cross sourcing before the Gospels were written in final form that we seem them today, which is what Q theory really represents. The idea that the Gospels were a product of the early Christian (apastolic) community is hardly anathama to CC doctrine.

 

[David_Zampino]

Great summary. I think the one point missing from it is that there may have been “editing” and cross sourcing before the Gospels were written in final form that we seem them today, which is what Q theory really represents. The idea that the Gospels were a product of the early Christian (apastolic) community is hardly anathama to CC doctrine.

I would agree completely.

We also can’t forget that the four Gospels were originally written to four different audiences and as such would emphasize the particular needs, concerns, and interests of those audiences.

 

[diggerdomer]

1. The authorship of Hebrews was most fiercely debated in the West, while the authorship of Revelation was most fiercely debated in the East. The question as to whether John the Apostle was the same as John the Elder was a vigorous 4th century debate (and, in some circles, remains so to this day.) For the record, I’ll argue that the author of both the Gospel, the Letters, and Revelation was the Apostle.

At the end of the day, the issue is this: The Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God as defined by the Church and as given by the Authority of the Church. Questions of date of writing and (in some cases) authorship have existed from the time of the Early Church, and continue to exist to this day. And this is fine. But these questions, as interesting as they might be, should never cause us to lose sight of the authoritative nature of the sacred text itself.

Well said! (to the whole post, I just didn’t want to quote the entire thing). Thank you!

I agree with you. For instance, I tend to think that the Gospel of John was written in the 90s and was written by a follower (or followers) of John and not by the Apostle John himself. That’s just the theory I agree with. You have a different opinion, another common and acceptable theory, and that’s fine. Neither of our thoughts on this specific matter are required for or contrary to Catholic faith.

Your final paragraph sums it up very well. Thanks again.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

For instance, I tend to think that the Gospel of John was written in the 90s and was written by a follower (or followers) of John and not by the Apostle John himself.

That’s my suspician as well. That doesn’t preclude the possibility that the author based what he wrote primarily on what John taught him which is why “authorship” is such a nontrivial matter.

 

[Erich]

1. My first point notwithstanding, I also have no difficulty with the concept that the Gospels did undergo some editing in the immediate generations following their writing. This is most clear in the long ending of Mark, and the double-ending of John. Editing by a disciple of the author does not undermine the legitimacy of the author.

It’s always best to go back to the original source of something, to ensure that there are no misrepresentations. For two editions of Mark and John to each have survived to the present day, it makes more sense for each edition of Mark (and each of John) to have been penned by the same author. For example (page 89):

The foundation-stone of the Markan priority theory is the alleged inability of Mark (the secretary of the bishop of Rome) to write in good Greek. But if we accept Orchard and the Clementine tradition, an alternative explanation comes to mind.

Extremists among the Judaizing Party would not have been pleased at the acceptance by Peter of Luke’s Gentile gospel. We know today that when a religious or political leader makes a statement on a disputed subject, some in the losing party will be suspicious that their leader has been misquoted. They will demand to know exactly what the leader has said.

I suggest that diehard members of the Judaic party would have wanted to read an unedited verbatim record of the exact words of Peter. An edited, improved version would not have been acceptable. So the scriptural misquotation and poor grammar had to be left unchanged in the published document. The early Christian communities already had two long carefully designed gospels. So the literary style of a transcript of a series of talks, would not have be seen as of great importance or an embarrassment for the Church.

The problem of the poor Greek of Mark is more acute for the upholders of Markan priority. They claim it was the only gospel in existence for 20 or more years. As the key document of a new dynamic religion, it would have presented a very negative portrait of the intelligence, education and capability of its leaders. So why did the Christian Community leave the obvious misquotations and grammatical errors uncorrected?

and from page 60:

Chapters VI, VII, XI and this chapter show each Gospel was written to meet a pressing need. Matthew wrote for the Jews of Palestine just prior to the Apostles leaving them. Luke wrote to meet the needs of the Gentiles. Peter delivered his series of talks conflating Luke with Matthew so as to authorise Luke`s gospel. And Mark responded to the demand for an unedited record of the talks. John then produced his at the request of Andrew and other disciples to meet the need to answer the attacks of the Gnostics. His later addition of a chapter was again to meet questionings.

We find this pattern supported by the words of Eusebius:
Only Matthew and John have left us their recollections, and tradition says that they took to writing perforce. . Matthew … when he was on the point of going to others… ((EH 3: 24, 5-6)). Luke was faced with the circulation of unauthorised accounts ((Luke 1: 1-4)), John was asked to relate in his own gospel the period passed over in silence by the former evangelists…” [So again perforce.] ((EH 3: 24, 11)).
This is very different to the Markan scenario. Markans seem to imagine the authors writing in their leisure time, when the mood took them, in isolated communities away from the real world.

 

[Erich]

As for the two endings of Mark, pages 87-89:

Mark`s Gospel breaks off abruptly at 16: 8, before continuing with twelve more verses. This break involves ending with an enclitic form of Greek grammar, and this is inappropriate for the ending of a paragraph, never mind a book. Many suggestions have been put forward in explanation of these additional verses. As mentioned in our Chapter VII, Orchard suggested that they might have been notes for a further talk that was not delivered.

My suggestion is as follows: The audience listening to Peter would have already known the information provided in Matthew’s Gospel. But for most of them the gospel of Luke contained new material.

As Orchard has pointed out, Peter stopped at the point his personal eyewitness of the earthly life of Christ ended ((RO 271-8)). Peter had not commented on all the new interesting pieces of information provided by Luke. I suggest that the audience would have asked questions, and these last verses record the answers supplied by Peter.

To illustrate: As the ‘he’ of verse 9 does not refer to the young man in verse 5, one would have expected to read ‘Jesus’. But if the name of the Lord had been contained in a question, the use of ‘he’ would be correct.

Matthew in 28: 1-10 says that Mary Magdalene was, with another woman, the first to see Jesus, and Luke 24: 10 confirms this. But earlier Luke had mentioned a woman of the same name, ‘a Mary who is called Magdalene’, who had been possessed by seven devils (Luke 8: 2). We should not be surprised if someone, noting her history, asked if this was the same person. Peter replies that it was (Mark 16: 9). He then confirms that Luke was also correct when he wrote that it was she who told the Apostles.

Matthew had not reported that Christ had appeared to two men walking, but Luke gives this incident much space (Luke 24: 13-31). Should the audience accept this story as true? As Peter was not one of the two, he was unable to confirm all the details, but he does confirm that Christ did appear to two disciples walking in the countryside (Mark 16: 12).

Luke then tells the story of Christ appearing to the eleven (24: 33-36). Yet Matthew has not mentioned this. Was it true? Peter, being there, is able to confirm that it was (Mark 16: 14).

Matthew says followers of Christ were to teach and baptise (28: 19), but Luke says they are to preach penance and forgiveness (Luke 24: 47). Was there a discrepancy here? Peter explains how baptism follows on from successful preaching (Mark 15: 15-16).

In his second volume, Luke says that Paul was able to cast out a devil (Acts 16: 18). There was no mention of this power in Matthew. So was it true? Peter, not being present at the incident, could not confirm it, but gives it credibility by saying Christ had foretold that such happenings would occur (Mark 16: 17).

In Acts 2: 4 and 10: 46, Luke reports Peter as having been present on two occasions when speaking in tongues had taken place. Matthew had not reported these events. Peter is able to confirm them in his response to the question about casting out the devils (Mark 16: 17).

The audience had read in Acts 28: 5, that Paul was impervious to the poison of a snake. Matthew had not recorded such an incident. Could it be true? Not being present at the incident, all Peter can do is again refer to the words of Christ. We then read of a similar question regarding the laying on of hands. He answers (Mark 16: 18) in the same way.

Luke in 24: 51 and Acts 1: 9 describes how Christ ascended to heaven. As Matthew had not described this, the audience would have found it of great interest. Peter, having been an eyewitness, was able to confirm and slightly embellish the account of Luke. (Mark 16: 19).

A person’s style of speaking will be different when answering questions from when he is giving atalk. The different style of these final verses has often been noted.

If the above suggestion is accepted, it would point to Acts, as well as Luke’s gospel, having been seen by some of the audience prior to or during the period of the talks. In addition to Mark, the audience is likely to have included Paul, his guard, Luke, Linus, Cletus, Clement of Rome, Alexander, Rufus and Hermas.

 

[Erich]

The “Q” hypothesis is really a series of many different hypotheses noting similarity between Matthew and Luke with regard to material not found in Mark. Belief in the “Q” hypothesis is neither required, nor is it forbidden.

Markans claim the authors copied from Marks Gospel. They further assert that Matthew and Luke had no knowledge of each other. So where did they obtain their many identical verses that were not present in Marks Gospel? Markans say they copied from a lost document, which they call Q. However, occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark suggest that Luke and Matthew were not independent of each other, and thus argue against the Q hypothesis.

From page 75:

There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed. If Q had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of The Our Father and The Beatitudes to Q. Mark did not bother to record them. If Q had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of
Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about Q, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality Q was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

Popes Pius XII and Paul VI had urged the use of modern methods of biblical study but they never endorsed the Markan priority theory. Unfortunately, Dei Verbum was ignored and replaced with Markan priority (I know… because Markan priority is what I was taught in high school). Hope existed at the time, in some circles, that unpressured discussion of the Markan priority hypothesis would lead to establishing the truth… but what we ended up with instead was a bunch of Catholic scholars who (mistakenly) think the Gospels were all written after Peter’s death.

 

[Erich]

The Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God as defined by the Church and as given by the Authority of the Church. Questions of date of writing and (in some cases) authorship have existed from the time of the Early Church, and continue to exist to this day. And this is fine. But these questions, as interesting as they might be, should never cause us to lose sight of the authoritative nature of the sacred text itself.

[SIGN]AMEN![/SIGN]

That might be part of the reason why, in 1893 Pope Leo wrote in Providentissimus Deus (at the end of Section 17): ‘It is clear, … that in historical questions, such as the origin and handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance; … internal evidence is seldom of great value except as confirmation.’

 

[David_Zampino]

It’s always best to go back to the original source of something, to ensure that there are no misrepresentations. For two editions of Mark and John to each have survived to the present day, it makes more sense for each edition of Mark (and each of John) to have been penned by the same author.

Erich,

I don’t put quite the faith in your source as you seem to, but that’s okay. It is certainly not a matter of eternal salvation, faith, morals, etc.

Let me put it this way, though. Your source seems to be reasoning backward. In other words, he has formulated an opinion, and then seeks to justify it by inventing some fairly strange hypotheses.

The fact is, is that many of the earliest manuscripts don’t include the long ending of Mark. Why? We don’t know and can only speculate. With regard to John, many scholars (and not all “Liberal Protestants”) see the Prologue and final chapter as later additions to the original text (which still does not deny Johannine authorship).

The fact remains is that the Canon we have, is the Canon the Church has received and defined. That includes the long ending of Mark and the version of John including the Prologue and the second ending. Regardless of who may or may not have participated in the editing process (or whether such a process did or did not take place) the Canon we have is the Canon we have. Papias wrote that Matthew penned the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew (or Aramaic). But we don’t have that text. And even if we were to discover it, we still have Canonical Matthew (in Greek) which the Church has declared to be inspired Word of God.

That’s good enough for me!

 

[David_Zampino]

Markans claim the authors copied from Marks Gospel. They further assert that Matthew and Luke had no knowledge of each other. So where did they obtain their many identical verses that were not present in Marks Gospel? Markans say they copied from a lost document, which they call Q. However, occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark suggest that Luke and Matthew were not independent of each other, and thus argue against the Q hypothesis.

Popes Pius XII and Paul VI had urged the use of modern methods of biblical study but they never endorsed the Markan priority theory. Unfortunately, Dei Verbum was ignored and replaced with Markan priority (I know… because Markan priority is what I was taught in high school). Hope existed at the time, in some circles, that unpressured discussion of the Markan priority hypothesis would lead to establishing the truth… but what we ended up with instead was a bunch of Catholic scholars who (mistakenly) think the Gospels were all written after Peter’s death.

Erich,

Again, I question the validity of your source. His understanding of the “Q” theory is flawed and his argument is based on a flawed assumption, namely that “Q” if it existed, must have been a written document.

The popes you cited did indeed urge ***proper ***use of critical methods of Scripture study. We don’t however, know what their views on Markan priority were (or were not). This is an argument from silence. Whether or not the Gospels were written before the death of Peter is not particularly relevant (and not knowable). My own opinion – and this is merely my own opinion, but I think that I could probably defend it pretty well – that Mark was written during the persecution in Rome under Nero. It was during that persecution that both Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom.

For the record, I vehemently disagree with those more “progressive” scholars who wish to push the dates of the Gospels into the 2nd century.

 

[David_Zampino]

[SIGN]AMEN![/SIGN]

That might be part of the reason why, in 1893 Pope Leo wrote in Providentissimus Deus (at the end of Section 17): ‘It is clear, … that in historical questions, such as the origin and handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance; … internal evidence is seldom of great value except as confirmation.’

And with no disrespect to Pope Leo XIII of happy memory, several of his successors have not only permitted, but encouraged the ***proper ***use of critical methods of textual analysis. I strongly suspect that Pope Leo was reacting against Protestant German liberalism – and since 1893, the Church has recognized that other people, not just Protestant German liberals, have learned to carefully examine texts!

 

[diggerdomer]

Markans claim the authors copied from Marks Gospel. They further assert that Matthew and Luke had no knowledge of each other. So where did they obtain their many identical verses that were not present in Marks Gospel? Markans say they copied from a lost document, which they call Q. However, occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark suggest that Luke and Matthew were not independent of each other, and thus argue against the Q hypothesis.

From page 75:

Popes Pius XII and Paul VI had urged the use of modern methods of biblical study but they never endorsed the Markan priority theory. Unfortunately, Dei Verbum was ignored and replaced with Markan priority (I know… because Markan priority is what I was taught in high school). Hope existed at the time, in some circles, that unpressured discussion of the Markan priority hypothesis would lead to establishing the truth… but what we ended up with instead was a bunch of Catholic scholars who (mistakenly) think the Gospels were all written after Peter’s death.

I don’t think that’s an accurate representation of the (or maybe all) Markan priority theories and Q. As I understand it, Markan priority does not depend on Q, rather Q as a theory (just that, nothing more nothing less) depends on assuming Markan priority. It’s a result of the Markan priority theory, not a proof of it. Q is used to explain passages Luke and Matthew have in common that are not in Mark. One can hold Markan priority with or without Q. One can think Q was a real document or not. Catholics are free to accept the theories of Markan priority and/or Q…or not.

Yes, the Church does not specifically “endorse” Markan priority, but it does not reject it either.

There are many reputable Scripture scholars who think the Gospels were all written after Peter’s death. Catholics are free to agree with that…or not.

 

[annem]

Detales

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.

---

Dionysius called these people the “apostles of the devil”, a common phrase then for the
Gnostics. And, as we certainly know, the Gnostics were very busy then, writing the so called ‘Gospel’ of Thomas, which was cobbled together circa 170 AD and full of non-Christian thought, such as line 114 'females do not deserve to live".

I can suggest some books on this subject for you.

However, your point is simply incorrect.

May God wash you in light, Annem

 

[annem]

Detales

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,

Bur so far, every single fact you claimed is proven incorrect. Go back and check my statements about them

There are many fine scholars who have dedicated their lives to studying the earliest years of Christianity. Far from finding it 'difficult to accurately assess what happened" they are proving that we can rely on the New Testament documents.

May God wash you in light and graces, Annem t

 

[Erich]

For anyone who may be interested, here is a web site for the Two Gospel Hypothesis – maintained by Protestant scholars who “have found the widely accepted ‘Two Document Hypothesis’ * unsatisfactory as an explanation of the literary phenomena that are observed when the first three gospels are compared with each other.”

Here is another explanation* (by Protestant theologians) of why the Two Gospel Hypothesis is significant.

Finally (for Catholics) what difference does it make whether one looks at Christian faith in terms of the Two Document [aka Two-Source] Hypothesis or the Two Gospel Hypothesis? From page 120 of The Gospel of Jesus by William Reuben Farmer (who was Professor of New Testament * Emeritus,* at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.):

In this case, the difference can be measured in terms of how the Two-Source Hypothesis affects the scriptural basis for a belief that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. In a phrase, the Two-Source Hypotheses weakens scriptural support for this belief. It does this by underscoring that Jesus’ assurance that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church is not found in the Gospel of Mark. This assurance is also not found in Q. It is not attested in either of the two earliest and most reliable sources, assuming the validity of the Two-Source Hypothesis.

The same can be said about the tradition in which Jesus promises to give the keys of the kingdom to Peter. The Two-Source Hypothesis also weakens scriptural support for the belief that authority in the church is in some unique way related to the person of Peter. All those who doubt that Jesus made this promise to Peter will find support for their reservations, assuming the validity of the Two-Source Hypothesis, because these words are absent from both Mark and Q. Conversely, Christians who hold that Jesus promised to give Peter the keys find scriptural support for this conclusion under the Two Gospel Hypothesis .

Now you know why the Markan priority hypothesis, which held that the Gospel of Matthew was a late anonymous non-eyewitness composition, became of great interest to Bismarck during the Kulturkampf (and why it spread so rapidly among Lutheran, Anglican, and Protestant theologians).

 

[annem]

Detales

What matters is how they were interptreted by whom for what reasons on what grounds. So not only is authorship in question, so are a lot of other ideas

Again, this is an unsubstantiated claim. Indeed, I belief most of modern scholarship refutes it completely. Was there any difference between what Paul claimed, in 50 AD, and all subsequent Christian writings?

The answer is no. I suggest you pick up a copy of “Lord Jesus Christ” by Larry Hurtado, who has intensively studied this question.

May God wash you in light and grace, Annem

 

[Erich]

Again, I question the validity of your source.

My source’s sources include the following:
AD AD 2000, 582 Queensbury Street, Vic 3051, Australia.
AF The Documents of the Second Vatican Council by Austin Flannery, 1975.
AH Modern Catholicism by Adrian Hastings, 1991.
AH1 Harmony of the Gospels by Augustine of Hippo, book 1 (web EP 445)
AH4 Harmony of the Gospels by Augustine of Hippo, book 4 (web EP 447)
AJM Lukes Use of Matthew by A.J.McNicol, 1996. AJMT Two Gospel Hypothesis by A.J.McNicol, Perkins Journal, 1987. AMJ Ante-Marcionite Prologue to John, Regul MSS S2, 3, 7, 8. AMM Ante-Marcionite Prologue to Mark, Regul MSS J2, S2, 3. AP The Acts of Peter chapter 20, by author unknown, circa 180 (web ecw). AS Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum [908] by A. Souter BC The Early History of the Church of God by the Bishop of Clifton, 1901. BHSG The Four Gospels by B. H. Streeter, 1924. BHSR Reality, a new correlation of science and religion by B. H. Streeter, 1927. BMM The Early Versions of the New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger, 1977. BOA Annales Theologici, vol.7 (in English) by Bernard Orchard, 1993. BOD Dei Verbum & Synoptic Gospels, B.Orchard, July 1990 (web ES 99). BOF The Four Gospel Hypothesis by Bernard Orchard, 1993 BOM Matthew, Luke and Mark by Bernard Orchard, 2nd edition, 1977. BOO The Origin and Evolution of the Gospels by B.Orchard (pamphlet), 1993. CCC The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 (web E). CCCC Catechism of the Catholic Church, Corrigenda, 1997. CCHS A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953 CD A Question of Conscience by Charles Davis, 1967. CE The Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1912, (web ce). CL Back to the Bible by Cuthbert Lattey, 1944. CMT The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis by C. M. Tuckett, 1983. COR Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinthians, Kirsopp Lake. (web EP 503). CR From Nun to Mum by Clare Richards, 1991. CTG The Gospel of Matthew by Claude Tresmontant, 1986. CTH The Hebrew Christ by Claude Tresmontant, 1989. CTJ Jesus: Life or Legend by Carston Thiede, 1997. CTP The Jesus Papyrus by Carston Thiede, 1997. CTR Rekindling the Word by Carston Thiede, 1995. DAS Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII, 1943. (web E). DV Dei Verbum, Second Vatican Council, 1965. (web E). DVI De Viris Illustribus by Jerome (web na Fathers). DBP Marks Use of Matthew and Luke, edited by D.B.Peabody, 2002.
*EB The Historicity of the Bible by Edith Black, H&PR, 1980 (web ca).
EH Ecclesial History,Eusebius Pamphili,(Kirsopp Lake)1980(webEP189-191)
EL Is There a Synoptic Problem? by Eta Linnemann, 1993.
EM Influence de l’evangilo de saint Mattieu…by E. .Massaux Louvain, 1950.
ESB Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, full Report, 1985 (web esb)
FJR A Basic Guide To Religious Instruction by F. J. Ripley, 1965.
FM Faith Magazine, 16a off Coniston Way, Reigate, RH2 0LN.
GC Article by G. Caprile in Civilita Cattolica, 1966,1.
GCD General Catechetical Directory, Congregation of the Clergy 1972 (web E).

(cont’d)

 

[Erich]

GE The Church in Rome in the First Century by G. Edmundson, 1913.
GS Historical Introduction to the New Testament by George Salmon, 1885.
HO Observations on the Four Gospels by Henry Owen, 1764.
HR Preface to Luke by Harold Riley, 1993.
HRPD Christ In Our World by Hubert Richards & Peter De Rosa, 1966.
HWF The Future of The Church by H. Wansbrough, 2003 (web hwf)
HWG Gospels by H. Wansbrough, Theology Trust, 2003.
IAH Adversus Haereses, book 3, by Irenaeus tr. by J. Keble 1872 (web EP 13).
IDU Ancient Christian Writers-Irenaeus,book 1, trans. intro. by D.Unger, 1992
IJK Irenaeus to Florinus translated by J. Keble, 1872 (web na second item).
JATR Redating the New Testament by J.A.T. Robinson, 1976.
JATRP The Priority of John by J. A. T. Robinson, 1985.
JC The Birth of the Synoptics by Jean Carmignac, English, translated 1987.
JHC John the Presbyter by John H.Chapman, 1911.
JJK History/Critique ofMarcanHypothesis,Meijboom1835-66, J.J.Kiweit,1993.
JMA First Apology to Emperor Antonius Pius by Justin Martyr. (web EP 2).
JMD Dialogue with Trypho the Jew by Justin Martyr. (web EP 4).
JNDK The Pastoral Epistles by J.N.D. Kelly, 1960.
JPCT Catechesi Tradendae by Pope John Paul II, 1979 (web E).
JPDV Dominum et Vivificantem, by Pope John Paul II, 1986 (web E).
JPFR Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II, 1998 (web E).
JPRC Redemptoris Custos, by Pope John Paul II, 1989 (web E).
JPRM Redemptoris Mater by Pope Paul II, 1987 (web E).
JRA The Ratzinger Report of 1984 by V. Messori, pub.1985.
*JRL Lecture by Cardinal Ratzinger, 27th January 1988 (web ca).
*JRLT Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on Liberation Theology 1984 (web ca).
*JRC Cardinal Ratzinger at Catechetical Conference, 9th Oct. 2002 (web ca).
JW The Church, Hope of the World by Cardinal John Wright, 1972.
KCH The K. C. Hanson Collection of Ancient Documents (web kch).
LC The Four Gospels by Lucien Cerfaux, 1960.
LT Living Tradition, PO. Box 109 Eastman, WI54626, U.S.A (web rt).
LOR L Osservatore Romano, 21st April 1986. MFGR Muratorian Fragment by Hippolytus, tr. by G. Rauschen 1905(web EP 97). MJW Catechisms and Controversies by Michael J. Wrenn, 1991. MP Paul the Letter Writer & the 2nd Letter to Timothy by Michael Prior, 1989. NCCHS The New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1969, 1981. PBCB Interpretation of the Bible by Pontifical Biblical Comm. 1994 (web E). PBCG On Historic Truth of Gospels by Pontifical. Biblical Comm.1964 (web E). PCB Peakes Commentary on the Bible, 1962.
PDR Jesus who became Christ by Peter DeRosa, 1974.
PT Turmoil and Truth by Philip Trower, Family Publications/ Ignatius, 2003.
*PT17 Turmoil and Truth by Philip Trower, chapter 17 only (web ca).
RB Response to 101 Questions on the Bible by Raymond E. Brown, 1990.
RBM The Birth of the Messiah by Raymond E. Brown, 1977.
RDCA Clement of Alexandria fragment trans. by Robert-Donaldson (web ecw)
RL The Truth of Christmas by Rene Laurentin, 1986.
RO The Order of the Synoptics by H. Riley and B. Orchard, 1987.
RSV The Holy Bible: RSV Version, Catholic Edition, 1966.
SB Scripture Bulletin, Newman College of H.E. Birmingham, B32 3NT.
SH The Shepherd by Hermes (web EP 936).
SGP The Syrian Christians by S. G. Pothan, 1963.
SNTW Interpretation of the New Testament by Stephen Neill & Tom Wright 1988.
TE The Tertullian Project by R. Pearse (web te).
*TMH The Gospels as History by T. Mc Govern, H&PR 1992 (web ca).
*TMM Magisterium, Scripture, Catholic Exegetes by T. McGovern 1991(web ca).
TR The Council of Trent, 1546, (web E).
TW The Wanderer, 20thApril 1995. (web ES 100).
VAT [First] Vatican Council, Session 4, chap.1, sections 3, 4 and 6 (web E).
WGK The New Testament by W.G. Kummel, 1973.
WMA The Documents of Vatican II translated by W. M. Abbott, 1965.
WW The Relationship Among The Gospels edited by W. Walker, 1978.
WRF The Synoptic Problem by W.R.Farmer, 1976.
WRFB Bismarck & The Four Gospels by W.R.Farmer, 1996 (web cih).
WRFN New synoptic Studies by W. R. Farmer, 1983
H&PR=Homeletic and Pastoral Review. DR=Downside Review

as well as christendom-awake.org/

 

[annem]

Detales

nd, 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…

I am baffled by this statement. What, are there more New Testament writings being held in secret tunnels under the Vatican?

Detales

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

Again, you are not clear. Exoteric vs exoteric? Please explain. In fact, I call on you to give evidence for your belief that “interpretations” have changed.

May God shower you with graces and light, Annem