Who Wrote the Four Gospels?

[buffalo]

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.

I found his references pretty darn good. It is not an opinion piece. It is well researched and documented.

 

[David_Zampino]

I found his references pretty darn good. It is not an opinion piece. It is well researched and documented.

It IS an opinion piece, and an opinion piece which is legitimate, albeit, an extreme minority position.

I question the author’s qualifications. That’s about all. The author needs to be able to defend his position. And his qualifications to hold a position.

At this point in time, I recognize that he has the right to his opinion.

At this point in time, I recognize that his opinion places him in the minority viewpoint – not only against those “liberals”, those “German Protestants”, etc., but among conservative scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, as well.

That’s about it.

 

[David_Zampino]

I found his references pretty darn good. It is not an opinion piece. It is well researched and documented.

What are your qualifications? What is your area of expertise?

I’ll freely admit my own biases. I’ll freely admit my own qualifications. And lack thereof.

I’m interested in yours.

Care to elaborate?

 

[buffalo]

What are your qualifications? What is your area of expertise?

I’ll freely admit my own biases. I’ll freely admit my own qualifications. And lack thereof.

I’m interested in yours.

Care to elaborate?

…THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:

		The earliest Christian historians
		Modern literary analysis
		The doctrine of the church
		Recent Church statements

 

[diggerdomer]

NotWorthy

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

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

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

God bless, Annem

Jerome and Origen mentioning a gospel of Matthew written in either Hebrew or Aramaic does NOT mean they had a copy. Unless you have evidence otherwise?

Yes, they studied the early gospels intensely, but we also have to acknowledge that Origen was considered heretical by many in the Church, and Jerome (one example) significantly mistranslated the Hebrew Scriptures to say Moses’ face “had horns” rather than (correctly) “shone” – which is why many medieval images of Moses included showing horns protruding from his head. (See Exodus 34).

So, there is plenty of room to doubt or accept what you claim. Either are ok for Catholics.

 

[diggerdomer]

It IS an opinion piece, and an opinion piece which is legitimate, albeit, an extreme minority position.

I question the author’s qualifications. That’s about all. The author needs to be able to defend his position. And his qualifications to hold a position.

At this point in time, I recognize that he has the right to his opinion.

At this point in time, I recognize that his opinion places him in the minority viewpoint – not only against those “liberals”, those “German Protestants”, etc., but among conservative scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, as well.

That’s about it.

I agree. If anyone who differs can provide more thorough or reasoned response please share.

 

[David_Zampino]

Buffalo,

You don’t need to shout.

Nor have you answered my questions.

Now as to your assertions:

…THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:

		The earliest Christian historians

Possibly. An assertion you, or anyone else, has been able to prove (or can prove – either way, for that matter!)

Modern literary analysis

A minority of scholars accept a Matthean priority. Of those, only a portion accept the possibility of your “Clementine Tradition”. Most literary analysts, both inside and outside the Church disagree.

The doctrine of the church

Factually incorrect. No doctrine on the Synoptic Problem exists.

Recent Church statements

As interpreted by you. Not by the Holy See or by the Magisterium.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
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:

So, what I meant by what I said was that I disagree with any extension of the authorship timing debate that brings the actual authorship of the Gospels into debate. While we all know that the church hasn’t defined the Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John dogmatically, we agree that there is 2000 years of consistent tradition that they were indeed the authors. I do not feel that this should be taken lightly. So, unless there is overwhelming evidence unearthed that showed they were not the authors (and I can’t even imagine what that evidence would be), I think we need to assume that the authorship is as tradition suggests.

Once you agree on the authors, the timing comes down to finding a solution that fits the three big issues:

If Mark was first, Why would Matthew, an apostle, copy from Mark, a non-apostle
If Mark was first, why is there common material between Luke and Matthew that doesn’t exist in Mark.
If Matthew was first, why is Mark shorter and in less elegent Greek than its source?

Now, I grant you that good arguments exist for Matthew copying elements from Mark, if Mark got his insight from Peter, who obviously was privy to events that Matthew was not. But then you run into the questions about common elements between Matthew and Luke that don’t exist in Mark, requiring the common source designated “Q”.

To me, the more elegeant, and therefore more likely solution is that Matthew was first and that both Luke and Mark used it as a source. If you accept this view, you need to be able to explain why Mark is shorter and in less elegant Greek than its Matthew source, which is the main argument against this order. This is where the Clementine theory comes into play, suggesting that Mark was actually compiled notes from a Petrine presentation on the gospel.

 

[David_Zampino]

So, what I meant by what I said was that I disagree with any extension of the authorship timing debate that brings the actual authorship of the Gospels into debate. While we all know that the church hasn’t defined the Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John dogmatically, we agree that there is 2000 years of consistent tradition that they were indeed the authors. I do not feel that this should be taken lightly. So, unless there is overwhelming evidence unearthed that showed they were not the authors (and I can’t even imagine what that evidence would be), I think we need to assume that the authorship is as tradition suggests.

Paul,

We are agreed that this is not ***an ***authorship debate. (At least as far as I am concerned.)

Once you agree on the authors, the timing comes down to finding a solution that fits the three big issues:

If one accepts your hypothesis that these, are in fact, “big issues” requiring a solution. I’m not sure that I do!

If Mark was first, Why would Matthew, an apostle, copy from Mark, a non-apostle

A non issue. You partially answer your own question below. And there is a distinction between “copying” and “using source material”. I grade a lot of term papers!

If Mark was first, why is there common material between Luke and Matthew that doesn’t exist in Mark.

Again, a non-issue, at least as far as demonstrating priority.

If Matthew was first, why is Mark shorter and in less elegant Greek than its source?

Again, a non-issue, at least as far as demonstrating priority

Now, I grant you that good arguments exist for Matthew copying elements from Mark, if Mark got his insight from Peter, who obviously was privy to events that Matthew was not.

And that they wrote to different communities for different reasons! You’re arguing here against your own position. And again, “source” is more accurate than “copy”.

But then you run into the questions about common elements between Matthew and Luke that don’t exist in Mark, requiring the common source designated “Q”.

An oversimplification, but essentially yes.

To me, the more elegant, and therefore more likely solution is that Matthew was first and that both Luke and Mark used it as a source.

It’s nice when an “elegant” solution is therefore “more likely” but that’s not logic, or reality!

If you accept this view, you need to be able to explain why Mark is shorter and in less elegant Greek than its Matthew source, which is the main argument against this order. This is where the Clementine theory comes into play, suggesting that Mark was actually compiled notes from a Petrine presentation on the gospel.

You’re grasping at straws here. The quality of Mark’s Greek is not particularly relevant. Matthew’s Greek is better than Mark’s Greek. Luke’s Greek is better than Matthew’s Greek. John’s Greek is better than Mark’s Greek but not as good as Matthew’s Greek. If we date by quality of Greek, we have an order (from worst to best) of Mark, John, Matthew, Luke!

Somehow, I don’t think either of us are likely to accept that!

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo,

You don’t need to shout.

Nor have you answered my questions.

Now as to your assertions:

Possibly. An assertion you, or anyone else, has been able to prove (or can prove – either way, for that matter!)

A minority of scholars accept a Matthean priority. Of those, only a portion accept the possibility of your “Clementine Tradition”. Most literary analysts, both inside and outside the Church disagree.

Factually incorrect. No doctrine on the Synoptic Problem exists.

As interpreted by you. Not by the Holy See or by the Magisterium.

No shouting - I cut and pasted the quote from the document.
Dei Verbum and the Synoptic Gospels
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEISYN.txt

 

[David_Zampino]

No shouting - I cut and pasted the quote from the document.
Dei Verbum and the Synoptic Gospels
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEISYN.txt

My mistake, my apologies.

 

[paul_c]

---

Originally Posted by paul c
So, what I meant by what I said was that I disagree with any extension of the authorship timing debate that brings the actual authorship of the Gospels into debate. While we all know that the church hasn’t defined the Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John dogmatically, we agree that there is 2000 years of consistent tradition that they were indeed the authors. I do not feel that this should be taken lightly. So, unless there is overwhelming evidence unearthed that showed they were not the authors (and I can’t even imagine what that evidence would be), I think we need to assume that the authorship is as tradition suggests.

David,
you are quick to dismiss all the issues, without offering support or alternatives.
Why do you think the Markan priority is right and on what basis?

And how do you answer the skeptics’ charge that if Mark was first, then how could Matthew be Apostolic?

 

[David_Zampino]

David,
you are quick to dismiss all the issues, without offering support or alternatives.

Nonsense.

Why do you think the Markan priority is right and on what basis?

I find that a 4-source hypothesis (and note, please, that I am using the term hypothesis) best fits the evidence we have at this present time. I will also posit the possibility of a proto-Matthew (written in the language of the Hebrews) being Matthew’s collection of the “sayings” of Jesus pre-dating Mark. But as far as the Gospels in their final, canonical form, the four sources are as follows:

Mark

“Q” (not necessarily as a written document, but rather as an oral tradition)

“M” (Material unique to Matthew)

“L” (Material unique to Luke)

If you’re asking about my qualifications, my first Master’s Thesis was on the development of the New Testament Canon during the Patristic Age. I have graduate degrees in both historical and systematic theology, and have the hours, if I wanted to bother, for a third Master’s degree in Scripture. I have considered the issue from a fundamentalist perspective, an evangelical perspective, a conservative Catholic perspective, a centrist Catholic perspective, and a liberal Catholic perspective. I teach on the university level, and teach my opinion (shared by most scholars) that the 4-source hypothesis best fits the information we have at this time. I clearly identify it as a scholarly opinion, not fact, and that if the students don’t find it helpful, they are free to reject it.

But I do believe, based on the information we currently have that it best fits. Perfect? No.

And how do you answer the skeptics’ charge that if Mark was first, then how could Matthew be Apostolic?

Respectfully, I don’t consider that an issue. Mark is apostolic, because he recorded the words of Peter. Luke is apostolic because he was Paul’s companion. Matthew and John are apostolic because they were apostles.

 

[paul_c]

Nonsense.

I find that a 4-source hypothesis (and note, please, that I am using the term hypothesis) best fits the evidence we have at this present time. I will also posit the possibility of a proto-Matthew (written in the language of the Hebrews) being Matthew’s collection of the “sayings” of Jesus pre-dating Mark. But as far as the Gospels in their final, canonical form, the four sources are as follows:

Mark

“Q” (not necessarily as a written document, but rather as an oral tradition)

“M” (Material unique to Matthew)

“L” (Material unique to Luke)

If you’re asking about my qualifications, my first Master’s Thesis was on the development of the New Testament Canon during the Patristic Age. I have graduate degrees in both historical and systematic theology, and have the hours, if I wanted to bother, for a third Master’s degree in Scripture. I have considered the issue from a fundamentalist perspective, an evangelical perspective, a conservative Catholic perspective, a centrist Catholic perspective, and a liberal Catholic perspective. I teach on the university level, and teach my opinion (shared by most scholars) that the 4-source hypothesis best fits the information we have at this time. I clearly identify it as a scholarly opinion, not fact, and that if the students don’t find it helpful, they are free to reject it.

But I do believe, based on the information we currently have that it best fits. Perfect? No.

Respectfully, I don’t consider that an issue. Mark is apostolic, because he recorded the words of Peter. Luke is apostolic because he was Paul’s companion. Matthew and John are apostolic because they were apostles.

Your credentials are impressive. Tell us what you teach in regards to the genesis of the Gospel of Matthew in your hypothesis. Under what circumstances would an Apostle have taken the writings of a non-Apostle as a basis for his own work?

And what were the key points that made you believe the 4 source hypothesis? What were the key factors for you in beleiving Markan priority?

 

[David_Zampino]

Your credentials are impressive. Tell us what you teach in regards to the genesis of the Gospel of Matthew in your hypothesis. Under what circumstances would an Apostle have taken the writings of a non-Apostle as a basis for his own work?

Again, as I have stated, I do not accept your concept of Apostolic authority! I find Mark as apostolic as Matthew and John – as does the CHURCH!!!

I’m not trying to impress you (or anyone else) about my credentials. You asked – and many others on this thread – are tossing around viewpoints without any credentials at all.

My credentials do not equal my faith – and my learning may prove me wrong. My learning does not equate to my faith. My faith, however, is also informed by reason.

And what were the key points that made you believe the 4 source hypothesis? What were the key factors for you in believing Markan priority?

I’ve explained them. It is up to you to accept or reject them.

Blessings,

 

[paul_c]

Again, as I have stated, I do not accept your concept of Apostolic authority! I find Mark as apostolic as Matthew and John – as does the CHURCH!!!

The church accepts the Gospel of Mark as being Apostolic, but it does not recognize Mark as being an Apostle. There is a huge difference. These are questions that are asked by everyone, yet you act as if they are not relevant. This suprises me.

I’m not trying to impress you (or anyone else) about my credentials. You asked – and many others on this thread – are tossing around viewpoints without any credentials at all.
My credentials do not equal my faith – and my learning may prove me wrong. My learning does not equate to my faith. My faith, however, is also informed by reason.

I admit to having no academic credentials in this area. I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from the discussion. I’m simply trying to learn.

I’ve explained them. It is up to you to accept or reject them.

Can you point me to where you’ve explained why you think the Markan priority is the most likely. I went thorugh the entire thread and the only explanation I could find from you was that most scholars ( Protestant and Catholic) favor this view. Seriously, The only explanations I have ever found for why people believe that Mark was first is that it is the shortest and in the poorest Greek and that almost all of Mark is contained within Matthew . The prevailing view seems to be that subsequent Gospels had to improve on previous ones, so Matthew being superior in language and longer, must have been later.
This is the clearly the reasoning used by the editors in the NAB. This is what they say in the preface of the Gospel of Matthew :
The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

I do not find this view compelling in the least . So please, if you have a better reason than “Mark is fully contained within Matthew, therefore it must have been first” please share it, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m trying to learn. As it is, it seems to me that the Markan Priority is solely defined by the the fact that its shorter and less accomplished and is being upheld for those reasons despite considerable questions on why the Apostle Matthew would need to copy from the non- Apostle Mark and how Matthew and Luke could share content that does not occur in Mark. Furthermore, doesn’t it make sense that Matthew’s Gospel to the Jews would have been written prior to the fall of Jerusalem? I’m seriously looking for help here in finding a compelling argument that Mark was first. Is there any ECF that wrote that Mark was first? . I’ve seen quotes in Eusebius that say Matthew was first.

And by the way, look where the Markan priority in the NAB intro takes us. The authors deny Matthew’s authorship and in its last comment, they deny that Jesus could have predicted that Jerusalem would be destroyed before the fact, suggesting that the only way he could have said this was after the fact. This is clearly a cynical statement of non-belief. in the divinity of Christ. And this is not the only place that Markan priority has led to non-belief. On other forums, the athiests revel in the fact that the Markan priority leads to the assumption that the Bibles are not actually apostolic. How do you answer the skeptics in your classes when this question arises?

 

[Evan]

I found a good read, the book looking at the authorship and the authenticity of the Gospel accounts Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Baucklam. He finds internal evidence for the authorship of some gospels (John and Matthew). He finds internal evidence for the authority of the Gospel of Mark as coming from Peter. I don’t remember his analysis of Luke. He also shows that the gospels reflect events from eyewitnesses in Judea even though they may have been composed in Rome or Greece using various analysis of names on tombs of the time and names used in the Gospels.

 

[Erich]

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,

Isn’t it obvious? Thiede actually argued that since the main comparative script (from Nahal Hever) is generally dated no later than AD 50, the possibility of a date around the middle of the first century for the Magdalen papyrus would be possible. Matthew D’Ancona even says as much in the book he co-wrote with Thiede, Eyewitness to Christ:

“…Yet Thiede…argued that they * were of astonishingly early origin, dating from the mid-first century A.D…”

This review of that book* even describes how Thiede arrived at that date:

“…Thiede reexamined the fragments, using state-of-the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede’s tests and skill appear to be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have met with strong opposition from critics…”

• Of course* Thiede’s conclusions “have met with strong opposition from critics” … Mark’s Gospel is commonly dated between 64 and 70. Don’t you think a date of 60 (or even as early as 50) for Matthew would have important implications for the dating of Mark (and for Markan priority)? Doesn’t a date of 60 (or even as early as 50) for Matthew support the Clementine theory that Matthew – an eyewitness Apostle – wrote first?

 

[Erich]

I admit to having no academic credentials in this area. I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from the discussion. I’m simply trying to learn.

Most folks don’t know how to rebuild an engine… but that doesn’t disqualify them from driving a car.

Given the (admittedly somewhat esoteric) nature of this thread’s topic – or at least, what it has morphed into – I’d say we’re all trying to learn

 

[David_Zampino]

Paul,

You fall into a number of problematic areas here.

The church accepts the Gospel of Mark as being Apostolic, but it does not recognize Mark as being an Apostle. There is a huge difference. These are questions that are asked by everyone, yet you act as if they are not relevant. This surprises me.

You miss my point entirely. I never claimed that Mark was an apostle! I stated that the Church recognized Mark’s Gospel as being apostolic!

I admit to having no academic credentials in this area. I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from the discussion. I’m simply trying to learn.

As are many of us. As previously stated, I’m not trying to shove credentials down people’s throats. It’s just that question have been raised.

Can you point me to where you’ve explained why you think the Markan priority is the most likely. I went thorugh the entire thread and the only explanation I could find from you was that most scholars ( Protestant and Catholic) favor this view. Seriously, The only explanations I have ever found for why people believe that Mark was first is that it is the shortest and in the poorest Greek and that almost all of Mark is contained within Matthew . The prevailing view seems to be that subsequent Gospels had to improve on previous ones, so Matthew being superior in language and longer, must have been later.

I could go into a great deal of detail about the deliberate arrangement of material in Matthew, if you’re interested – but it seems to me that this goes beyond the original intent of this thread.

With respect, I don’t think that you’re aware of the “prevailing view”. With respect, I don’t think that you’ve gone beyond much behind your own “comfort level”.

This is the clearly the reasoning used by the editors in the NAB. This is what they say in the preface of the Gospel of Matthew

I’ll be very honest. You’ve probably pegged me as some radical “liberal”, but actually, I’m probably more conservative than most in the field.

I have very little use for the commentary in the NAB. VERY little use.

You might be interested in learning that the Protestant scholar, the late Bruce Metzger, shared a, shall we say, severe mistrust of the validity of the NAB.

What I resent, is the notion that those who accept ANY form of Higher Criticism, are automatically branded as “liberals” – when this is plainly not true.