Posted on 01/07/2004 6:49:39 PM PST by Salvation
Who Really Wrote the Gospels? FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
|
I recently attended a religious education workshop, and the teacher said that the Gospels were written by the early Church community probably between the years 200 and 300, not by St. Mark, etc. I find this strange. If this is true, then the Gospels really don't tell us much about Jesus but seem more "made up" by later believers. |
Therefore, to answer this question we must be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Catechism has a very succinct presentation on the formation of the Gospels.
The foundational premise is that "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He live among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up."
After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form. Sometimes the authors may have synthesized some of these events or teachings, or may have underscored parts or explained parts with a view to a certain audience. This is why the Gospels oftentimes tell the same story, but each will have certain details not included by the others. In a similar way, if each member of our family had to write a family history, each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also highlight certain details he considered important and would keep in mind who would be reading the family history. Nevertheless, the sacred authors wrote "in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus." Therefore to suggest that the third century Church "wrote" the Gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to "create" Jesus, is without foundation.
So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the 12 Apostles. We must keep in mind that the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his though and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.
Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with John Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.
St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint's authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origin (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint's direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80. St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Colossians 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220), and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel was written about 70-80.
St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.
Whether the actual saint wrote word-for-word, whether a student did some later editing, or whether a student actually wrote what had been taught by the saint, we must remember the texts — whole and entire — are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the human authors used their skills and language with a view to an audience; however, they wrote what God wanted written. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation clearly asserted, "Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the Sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.
Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Father Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, have analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry.
Jesuit Father Jose O'Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.
Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identify of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired, and as truly the Word of God.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Saunders, Rev. William. "Who Really Wrote the Gospels?" Arlington Catholic Herald.
This article is reprinted with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald.
THE AUTHOR
|
Father William Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Sterling, Virginia. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald. Father Saunders is also the author of Straight Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore.
No they just philosophize doctrines into existance and when they think it sounds good, the pretense is that it has been "revealed." Binding and loosing does not allow the creation of new doctrine save under a very narrow scope - that of amplifying an existing doctrine. That is the way things were under the law. As we are no longer under the law, even that extent of authority is questionable. And in any event, such things had to be made in full agreement with scripture, just as any "revelation" had to be in full agreement. Thus, saying that they don't invent doesn't moot the point that the revelation isn't in line with scripture. Therefore one must question who revealed it. But that upsets people who demand to be followed no matter what they proclaim. That isn't How it works. That's how your religion is setup; but, that isn't how Christianity is setup. And therein is the beef.
I guess I missed the "To be continued" or "Please see this other message" disclaimers in your message(s).
As you wrote:
"Perhaps you've missed the cleverly disguised point of all this - to get it right. It isn't about bashing or finger pointing. It's about dealing forthrightly about the facts and pointing out the correct path."
please see - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/656646/posts?page=48264.
Indeed, sir, indeed. Please don't take exception to others who insist on the same.
You'll note the difference between becoming a christian and remaining one and that thusly the context from which you ripped these things to present an appearance of something wrong... Any more slander you wish to engage in whilest you're at it?
Slander? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. An inconsistency was noted - and a darn important one at that - between two statements that you made. In one case (in Statement 1) it was downright error. I'm interested in souls and truth. What about you?
Your statements were not taken out of context - context was provided, along with the statements in question. Let's look for now at the first statement. You were clear of what it took to in becoming Christian in the first statement quoted:
1) Repent
2) Confess
3) Learning Scripture and following Christ
What about believe? As in confess and believe - believe and confess - i.e. remittance of sin, Paul also mentions this (e.g. born again, saved). Christ was clear in Mark 16, and Paul discussed this as well. You are not clear, indeed, you are errant. Both are required. Not just one - both. You've stated that:
"What does the scripture say? Believe and confess. Period. Both are required - not just one and we'll think about the other."
please see - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/656646/posts?page=7586.
We'll hold off on Statement 2 for now, and the issue of be[ing] a Christian. Statement 1 is sufficient and makes the point quite well. Scripture is inerrant. The Holy Spirit is inerrant. Christ is inerrant. What you wrote is errant and it was documented and noted as such. Concerning your other comments, how your ego (e.g. "nipping at heals [sic], could not be made to behave") handles someone noting you erring in representing Scripture - using your citations as references - is your concern. Facts, logic, reasoning and faith might be appropriate.
Souls and truth, Havoc. If that is what you believe is important, I'd ask you to be consistent with how you represent Scripture.
When you guys learn to read scripture and understand that a cup of 'my blood' that is still wine isn't actually blood.. you might get somewhere
When we learn to read Scripture? Hmmm.... Let's just take John 6 for now as this addresses in many ways the flesh and blood in question.
John has two literal uses of "eat my flesh and drink my blood". The first is the Jew's crass literlism - Jesus intends to tear off his flesh and consume as such - cannibalism. The second is sanctified literalism - Jesus speaking about eating and drinking his sacramental flesh and blood. At this point in time, Jesus doesn't expect the disciples, including the Apostles to understand this teaching of the precise form his flesh and blood will take -he does expect them to accept it. The Apostles accept it (although they would not fully understand until they were filled with the Holy Spirit), indeed some disciples did not accept and turned away and no longer followed him - the only time in the NT this occurs.
It's not an inconsistancy, as stated. And anyone who's read my comments on this issue knows that I hammer on repentance followed by compliance with Mark 16 requiring being born again and baptised in the Spirit, Romans 8 and John 10 - requiring being born again listening to and following in the Holy spirit AND the direction of the Apostles to reject anything which is different from the message they taught (requirement to know the scriptures). This is not new. It seems to step on your toes along with those of meny other sects; but, that's scripture.
They were your posts - your words that were posted and references to those posts were provided - much less wiggle room that way and sets the record straight for those who view the thread.
There are steps to becoming a Christian. You posted these steps - minus some. One of those steps is to confess and believe. Not just confess and not just believe. It's found in Scripture. The requirements as outlined by Scripture don't step on my toes, but what you posted (or rather, failed to post) is not what Scripture calls for and I will note that as such.
As I said before, you know this and you know your reputation from the Christian Chronicles threads. As per usual, you want to whine about the consequence of your behavior rather than behaving as a christian. That is your problem to solve, not mine. And your behavior is the reason you aren't directly speaking to me, or did you forget that part? I haven't.
Hmmm. I thought you were over that, as *you pinged me* on your reply. Guess not. Not sure what this has to do with souls and truth. - that's all of our concern. Whatever justifications you use for not getting it right in accordance with Scripture is for your and your ego to figure out.
Well, it's refreshing to know that you guys still think you need to attack me personally when you can't defend any given topic. It's understandable too that you all seem to feel the need for this kind of damage control. Tell ya what, you just keep it up and I'll sit back and snicker for a while. What's that rule, attack the citations and impugne them, if that fails attack the person and impugne them, if that fails.... but never deal with the topic at hand if it paints you in a bad light.. lol. Have fun.
"Need to attack you personally"? LOL. Not even close. I expect accuracy and references if someone is asserting something as fact, whether it be pertaining to Christianity or some other matter.
There is more to becoming a Christian than you stated in the first statement initially cited. Scripture was provided to justify that assertion, along with references.
It's not about you, Havoc, and you don't seem to get that. It's about souls and truth and making sure that Scripture is represented as to what it says - and means. I'm not sure who "you guys" is, and I don't consider insisting Scripture be quoted and represented accurately as "damage control". That you do is a cause for concern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.