Who Wrote the Four Gospels?

[annem]

Josethomas2005

He said gospels are something cleverly formulated in the 3rd century by roman emperors.

Hi, Jose. It will be very easy to refute this claim. Point out that we have fragments of the gospels from the early 100’s AD. And many other fragments from then on. All of which are exactly like the New Testament today.

Also, we have thousands and thousands of quotations from the early writers in the church from the gospels. And they, also, agree with our gospels today.’

If you want a very good book by a scholar who specialized in studying the earliest years of Christianity, try Larry Hurtado’s “Lord Jesus Christ”. \

May God truly grant you miracles, Annem

 

[annem]

Bubba Switzler

What happened to the Jewish Christians through the Jewish/Roman wars between the end of Acts and the end of the Bar Kohba rebelion?

Eusebius claimed all Christians fled to Pella and took no part in the war.

May God grant you miracles, Annem

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba:

What happened to the Jewish Christians through the Jewish/Roman wars between the end of Acts and the end of the Bar Kohba rebelion?

Eusebius claimed all Christians fled to Pella and took no part in the war.

That’s the story of Jerusalem, and Eusebius presumably relied on tradition in relating this, writing as he did two and a half centuries after the fact.

The Mishna give us reason to believe that the Rabbinical Jews conducted a major purge of Jewish Christians during the Bar Kohba rebelion.

This is the period of history during which Christianity went from a Jewish sect to a gentile religion and we are left to guess how the schism transpired.

 

[Erich]

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.

Actually, the 1943 Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pius XII accepted that literary analysis, which in 1893 had been used in an arbitrary manner and with preconceived opinions, had now achieved such stability and sureness of principles that it had become an excellent tool for research ((DAS 23 and 24)). It also called on everyone to continue with the one secure method prescribed by Leo XIII which had stood the test of experience ((DAS 15)).

Since it was Leo XIII who established the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and since it was the PBC which firmly opposed the Markan priority theory, it would certainly be safe to say that Pius XII rejected Markan priority.

Similarly, Paul VI had gone to great lengths to ensure the wording of Dei Verbum would
leave no ambiguity, so it would be equally safe to say that he rejected Markan priority as well.

 

[diggerdomer]

Since it was Leo XIII who established the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and since it was the PBC which firmly opposed the Markan priority theory, it would certainly be safe to say that Pius XII rejected Markan priority.

Similarly, Paul VI had gone to great lengths to ensure the wording of Dei Verbum would
leave no ambiguity, so it would be equally safe to say that he rejected Markan priority as well.

Neither conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Regardless of what either Pope thought individually, the Church does not require one to believe Markan priority nor does the Church reject the theory.

 

[Erich]

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.

True, one can hold Markan priority with or without Q… but external evidence (namely, all the early church writers who indicate that Matthew’s gospel was written first) argues against Markan priority. And, occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark suggest that Luke and Matthew were not independent of each other, arguing against Mark and Q being the only two sources for each of Luke and Matthew.

Finally, it is in many cases easy to see how Mark, if he had access to both Luke and Matthew, could have written the precise verses that he did. For example, Mark 1:32 mentions both that evening had come and that the sun was setting, while Matthew 8:16 and Luke 4:40 each mention one of those.

Which of the following is the simpler (and therefore more likely) scenario to explain the “synoptic problem”?



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Synoptic_problem_-Two_Source_hypothesis.png/250px-Synoptic_problem-_Two_Source_hypothesis.png

I must admit that, prior to your post, I never heard of a theory which stated that Q was anything besides a real document… but certainly those occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark would argue against that as well. If Luke and Matthew collaborated in any way with each other, they would have had no need for Q!

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.

For all the Gospels to have been written after Peter’s death, and for at least two of the Gospels (namely, Matthew and John) to have been written by Apostles (which Catholics are not free to disagree with), all the Gospels would have to have been written between 64 (Peter’s martyrdom) and roughly 110 (John’s death). But we can also surmise, from verses like Matthew 24:2 (“Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down”) and Matthew 24:3 (“when will this happen”), that Matthew’s Gospel was written prior to the destruction of the temple in 70, because it would seem strange for Matthew not to mention this event if it had already occurred.

Assuming the validity of Markan priority, Mark’s gospel would pretty much have to have been published the day of Peter’s martyrdom in order for it to have gotten widely-enough circulated for it to be available to Matthew to use as a source for his gospel (so that it, in turn, could get a wide-enough circulation before 70 to make a post-destruction “second Matthew ending” completely impractical)… assuming that an eyewitness Apostle would even choose to rely on a gospel written by a non-eyewitness evangelist! I suppose folks can believe that if they want… but for me it’s a pretty big stretch.

Also, see my post above about what Markan priority does to the teachings that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church and that Peter is the Rock upon whom the Church is built.

 

[Erich]

Neither conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Unless you expect me to believe that Pope Pius XII, on a matter of faith, called on everyone to continue with the one secure method prescribed by Leo XIII which had stood the test of experience even though he (Pius) personally didn’t believe it. How many times prior (or since) has any Pope not believed what he himself taught from the chair of Peter?

Regardless of what either Pope thought individually, the Church does not require one to believe Markan priority

Good thing!

nor does the Church reject the theory.

For 2000 years the Church taught that Matthew’s Gospel was written first.

In fact, Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria thusly:

`And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the very earliest presbyters about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. He used to say that the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. While Peter was publicly preaching the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, the audience, which was numerous, begged Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write down the things he had said.

And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel`. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)).

i.e. Clement of Alexandria (c 150-215) clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

Of course the Church rejects Markan priority!

 

[David_Zampino]

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).

An utter non sequitor.

Erich, I’m honestly surprised at you.

You are misrepresenting the enormous majority of Markan priority scholars, and are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting the enormous majority of CATHOLIC Scripture scholars regarding the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel.

Respectfully, in case you have not noticed, Bismarck has been dead for a century. If you are arguing that honest, conservative, Catholic scholars who assume a Markan priority are, by definition, sympathetic with Bismark and the Kulturkamph, then you must also argue that individuals who appreciate Wagner’s music are by definition Fascists.

 

[David_Zampino]

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.):

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).

With respect, did you ever meet Dr. Farmer?

I did, on a number of occasions. I also used his work in my own graduate work.

I strongly suspect that Dr. Farmer would not take your “argument” to the extent that you seem to insist on taking it. Yes, he believed in Matthean priority. He was a brilliant Scripture scholar who chose, for his own good reasons, to embrace a minority viewpoint.

BUT – you seem to be ascribing to Dr. Farmer positions which are unjustifiable, except by someone who insists on a “straw man” form of argumentation.

 

[David_Zampino]

Erich,

Merely listing sources of sources proves nothing. I have serious doubts as to whether you have accessed even a minority of these sources, seeing that even with a cursory glance, there are “sources” which would vehemently disagree with you.

It seems to me that you are losing sight of the forest for the trees!

Have you ever actually STUDIED the issues in question? Or are you merely reciting talking points?

 

[David_Zampino]

True, one can hold Markan priority with or without Q… but external evidence (namely, all the early church writers who indicate that Matthew’s gospel was written first) argues against Markan priority. And, occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark suggest that Luke and Matthew were not independent of each other, arguing against Mark and Q being the only two sources for each of Luke and Matthew.

Good grief, Erich, can’t you possibly see that Scripture scholars (yes, even CONSERVATIVE, CATHOLIC Scripture scholars) would vehemently disagree at your enormous distortions of what the various schools of thought ACTUALLY SAY???

 

[diggerdomer]

for at least two of the Gospels (namely, Matthew and John) to have been written by Apostles (which Catholics are not free to disagree with),

Sorry, this is not accurate. The Church does not currently teach that.

 

[diggerdomer]

Of course the Church rejects Markan priority!

No She doesn’t. Show me ONE place, today, that proves your claim (i.e. not something from centuries ago…this is not unchanging doctrine).

 

[diggerdomer]

Which of the following is the simpler (and therefore more likely) scenario to explain the “synoptic problem”?

Personally, of the two choices you offer, I would prefer the two-source hypothesis (though it’s incomplete).

I must admit that, prior to your post, I never heard of a theory which stated that Q was anything besides a real document… but certainly those occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark would argue against that as well.

Really? I’ve never heard any respectable theory that relied on Q being a factual document. It’s a hypothesis. that’s all.

I don’t know what you mean by Luke and Matthew being against Mark. That doesn’t make sense to me…Luke and Matt do not contradict Mark.

 

[Erich]

Really? I’ve never heard any respectable theory that relied on Q being a factual document. It’s a hypothesis. that’s all.

I no longer have any of my old high school texts so I can no longer quote them… but here’s what’s in Wiki (note the use of words such as “document”, “textual”, and “written” … along with an acknowledgement that no actual document or fragment of the hypothetical Q has been found):

The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, “source”) is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is a theoretical collection of Jesus’ sayings, written in Greek. Although many scholars believe that “Q” was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found.

I don’t know what you mean by Luke and Matthew being against Mark. That doesn’t make sense to me…Luke and Matt do not contradict Mark.

By “against Mark” I only mean that Matthew and Luke are more similar to each other than to Mark, not that they contradict Mark. One example, Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter`s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14:72). This is a problem for some versions of Markan priority (i.e. the ones which hold that Matthew and Luke were completely independent of each other). How did Matthew and Luke manage to use exactly the same phrase without having been in contact with one another?

Similarly, of the ten healing stories in Mark, eight appear in Matthew and Luke. They have chosen exactly the same eight. Mark lists six Commandments (10:19). Matthew and Luke list five and these are exactly the same five. If Mark was reading from the other two there is no problem in accepting that he copied what was in front of him and added something of his own. But if Matthew and Luke were using Mark, the pattern of choosing exactly the same items would be highly unlikely if they did not consult with one another.

Also a problem for these same versions of Markan priority are the “dualities” of Mark. In these cases, Matthew and Luke are each more similar to Mark than to each other… but not for the reason you might think. One example, Matthew writes: “That evening they brought to him“ (Mt. 8: 16-17) and Luke writes: “Now when the sun was setting, …they …brought them to him“ (Luke 4: 40-41), whereas Mark writes:“That evening, when the sun was setting, they brought to him” (Mark 1:32). By using both evening and when the sun was setting, Mark is duplicating himself. But there are many instances (over 200) where Mark duplicates himself and Matthew and Luke never chose the same half of the duality. They would have had to divide up Mark`s dualities between them in a consistent manner to avoid them using the same half… which again points to the problem (for certain Markan priorists) that Matthew and Luke are not completely independent of each other.

 

[diggerdomer]

By “against Mark” I only mean that Matthew and Luke are more similar to each other than to Mark, not that they contradict Mark.

Thanks for clarifying, I didn’t think you meant Luke and Matt contradicted Mark, but I didn’t know how to understand what you meant by “against.” Again, thanks.

One example, Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter`s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14:72). This is a problem for some versions of Markan priority (i.e. the ones which hold that Matthew and Luke were completely independent of each other). How did Matthew and Luke manage to use exactly the same phrase without having been in contact with one another?

This is a reason for hypothesizing “Q.” Because of the literary agreement that can often be found between Matt and Luke–and their both being different from Mark – it’s hypothesized that there was a source/document that was known/used by both Luke and Matt when they composed their Gospels. So I don’t see that as a problem for theorizing Markan priority.

… which again points to the problem (for certain Markan priorists) that Matthew and Luke are not completely independent of each other.

I may not understand you correctly…but I think that concluding Matt and Luke are not completely independent of each other is exactly part of the Markan priority theory and why Q is hypothesized. I don’t see a problem here for Markan priority.

 

[Erich]

No She doesn’t. Show me ONE place, today, that proves your claim (i.e. not something from centuries ago…this is not unchanging doctrine).

Dei Verbum (from which I’ve quoted the applicable portion several times), last time I checked, was not from “centuries ago” (though of course I’ll grant that it was from the latter half of the last century).

If you can show me the dogmatic constitution that rescinds Dei Verbum, then I’ll agree with your contention that “The Church does not currently teach that [at least two of the Gospels (namely, Matthew and John) were written by Apostles].” In the meantime, I will have to disagree.

 

[Erich]

Good grief, Erich, can’t you possibly see that Scripture scholars (yes, even CONSERVATIVE, CATHOLIC Scripture scholars) would vehemently disagree at your enormous distortions of what the various schools of thought ACTUALLY SAY???

Enormous distortions? I’ve been quoting what they say, precisely so as not to distort!

 

[diggerdomer]

Dei Verbum (from which I’ve quoted the applicable portion several times), last time I checked, was not from “centuries ago” (though of course I’ll grant that it was from the latter half of the last century).

If you can show me the dogmatic constitution that rescinds Dei Verbum, then I’ll agree with your contention that “The Church does not currently teach that [at least two of the Gospels (namely, Matthew and John) were written by Apostles].” In the meantime, I will have to disagree.

Of course Dei Verbum is not rescinded.

But, the only place it mentions Mark is para 18:

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.

Note the language carefully.

The Gospels are of “apostolic origin” – That does not say who physically wrote them.

“the Apostles preached” – That’s oral.

“they themselves [Apostles] and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing” – So, the writing of the New Testament was done by Apostles and apostolic men; still no mention of who physically wrote or didn’t write a given book.

“the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John” – according to; again not describing or dictating who physically wrote this or that book.

There is room from Dei Verbum to conclude John and Matt were written by the Apostles themselves. Their is room from Dei Verbum to conclude John and Matt were written by “apostolic men” i.e. not by the Apostles themselves.

Dei Verbum does not require us to hold one of these opinions, nor does it preclude us from holding either. To say otherwise is reading more into (or out of) the text.

 

[Erich]

Respectfully, in case you have not noticed, Bismarck has been dead for a century. If you are arguing that honest, conservative, Catholic scholars who assume a Markan priority are, by definition, sympathetic with Bismark (sp) and the Kulturkamph (sp), then you must also argue that individuals who appreciate Wagner’s music are by definition Fascists.

Geez, look who’s distorting now! How do you get from “Now you know why the Markan priority hypothesis became of great interest to Bismarck” to “honest, conservative, Catholic scholars who assume a Markan priority are, by definition, sympathetic with Bismarck and the Kulturkampf”?

Obviously, the Protestant scholars who came up with the Q theory had an agenda: to discredit the Church’s tradition (since apostolic times) that Matthew was the first-composed Gospel. That is because Matthew most strongly presents the case for the Church as a body led by Peter, and for the Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Just as obviously, the Pontifical Biblical Commission had its own agenda: to prevent the spread of Markan priority. In 1911, amongst other things, the PBC reaffirmed that the apostle Matthew authored the Gospel to which his name was attached. It said that there was adequate supporting tradition to form the view that it was the first to be written, and had been composed in the native language of Palestine prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, in 1912 it also said it was not permissible to depart from the opinion that Matthew, Mark and Luke were composed in that order. It is noteworthy that the statement endorses the priority of Matthew as Catholic tradition, while the chronological order of Mark and Luke was treated as an opinion. This had the unfortunate side effect of hindering the open advocacy of the Clementine “opinion” that, even though the traditional order of publishing was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the order of writing was Matthew, Luke, Mark, John.

There’s an addendum to Authors of the Gospels, beginning on page 104, that asks (and answers) how the Markan Priority theory came to achieve such prominence in Catholic Institutions; I recommend reading it. The following chapter explains what effect this has had on Catholic life; I recommend reading it as well.