Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

Catholic Education Resource Center ^ | 2003 | Fr. William Saunders

[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.

---

 
The notion that the Gospels are the product of the early Church community in the third century is "strange" indeed. However, we must be aware that a lot of "strange" things have emerged in some circles of modern Scripture scholarship, where scholars have isolated the texts of Sacred Scripture and examined them without any appreciation for divine intervention or the living Tradition of the Church. Sad to say, some Scripture scholars would have us believe that the only thing we can know for certain is that Jesus existed. Even the pagan Roman historians could tell us that. Such a bent in Scripture is misguided.

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.

[dangus]

*pounds head on desk*

It's not still wine!
That's the doctrine of consubstantiation, and is explicitly and emphatically rejected by the Catholic church.
It still comes from a vine, yes, but now it has been changed into something ELSE!

[Campion]

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.

Yeah, somewhere like ... hell.

[Fury]

Howdy.

Don't pound your head on the desk for Havoc, or any man ;). See post 106 for how John 6 progresses. When someone does not understand scaramental literalism, it's eitehr because they can't or they won't. Either way, it's a problem.

[Fury]

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 given a choice to believe and follow Scripture according to Havoc versus what Christ and the Apostles directed in Scripture, I'll choose the latter.

[dangus]

You know, as a Catholic, I instinctively debate this issue from the point of view. But one needn't believe in transubstantiation to make the case.

Suppose Christ tells me that I must eat pronouns and drink llama snot. Then he holds up snickerdoodle pies and says, "these are pronouns. Take and eat!" and he holds up motor oil and says, "This is llama snot. Take and drink."

You know what? I'm not gonna ask questions. I'm not going to debate WHY he called it llama snot. I'm not gonna ask how someone can eat a pronoun. I'm gonna do as he says.

So the doctors wondering why I drank motor oil and snickerdoodle pies (or how I survived it) might be perplexed. And Havoc might say I'm taking Jesus too literally. But here's the thing: Jesus called the Church his body. He commanded his disciples to be one, and to not have schism. He appointed them with the power to declare what is bound (law), and what is loosed (freedom). He gave them authority to declare what sins are held against us, and what is forgiven.

Havoc wants to say my doctrine make me like the Pharisees and the fallen disciples who departed from Christ. But who walked out on the Church which Christ founded? Who departed the Church which Christ called his own body?

[dangus]

Oh... Did you infer I was pounding MY head on a desk? *Chuckle* :^P :^D

[Havoc]

Now you're referring to yourself in third person? "Smeagol likes hobbitses!" |^D!

LOL.

You should know that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS maintained that "a sacrament of desire" occurs

Not always, this developed as with other philosophies that became doctrine. Not to knit pick, just getting perspective. Your clergy defined an exception that they decided was ok from their practice. Scripture contrarwise states that the practice with regard to circumcision is useless because the heart is what matters. The same would apply to water baptism. Thusly, you require something that spiritually is not required. God has already made the universal exception, you guys have not.

This is the problem. You can't say that God waved what he does not require. Did the Apostles water baptise? Yes. Not always; but, they did do it. But Christ required baptism of the Spirit. The exemption you make for your sacrement is from the "reasoned" or rationalized view that God made some judgement that isn't noted. In other words you're making an exemption under the assumption that God acted a certain way that isn't otherwise explained in your philosophy. Rather big of you to Give God the benefit of a doubt after ruling against him initially. But that assumes you actually know what God was thinking - doesn't it.

But EVEN baptism in the spirit was done with a laying on of hands.

Was it really. Who layed hands on who at Pentecost?

If a person rejects the outward sign, that it is certain that he has rejected the body of Christ.

Kinda like the Gifts of the spirit - meaning if you haven't layed hands on someone recently and healed them, raised them from the dead or had a Prophecy that came true, ect, then you have rejected God.... Remember the gifts of the spirit are supposed to be present according to Christ in those that follow him.. each showing different Gifts.. Funny how that sword of outward signs tends to cut.

[dangus]

>>Scripture contrarwise states that the practice with regard to circumcision is useless because the heart is what matters. The same would apply to water baptism. >>

Where does it say, "The same would apply to water baptism"?

The disciples FORBADE the practice of circumcision (of adults, at least), but themselves performed baptism all the time. Incessantly. Everywhere they went.

>>Not always; but, they did do it. >>

Yes. Absolutely, positively always.

>> Was it really. Who layed hands on who at Pentecost? >>

Baptism is an annointment. Baptism of the spirit shows that we are chosen by Christ to evangelize. The apostles were Chosen by Jesus in the flesh. At Pentecost, they were empowered to evangelize. Since the apostles, now that the time is fulfilled, both occur at once.

[dangus]

>>Scripture contrarwise states that the practice with regard to circumcision is useless because the heart is what matters. The same would apply to water baptism. >>

Where does it say, "The same would apply to water baptism"?

The disciples FORBADE the practice of circumcision (of adults, at least), but themselves performed baptism all the time. Incessantly. Everywhere they went.

>>Not always; but, they did do it. >>

Yes. Absolutely, positively always.

>> Was it really. Who layed hands on who at Pentecost? >>

Baptism is an annointment. Baptism of the spirit shows that we are chosen by Christ to evangelize. The apostles were Chosen by Jesus in the flesh. At Pentecost, they were empowered to evangelize. Since the apostles, now that the time is fulfilled, both occur at once.

Note that even Paul was sent to Damascus.