Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

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

[dsc]

Great article. Thanks.

[dsc]

"And this is exactly the sort of thing that Crichton attacked and attacked with clarity."

I don't know whether Crichton has done much translation or not, but I've been translating professionally from Japanese to English for 15 years now, and I can tell at a glance when a document was translated from Japanese to English not by a native speaker of English but by a Japanese person, no matter how good he may be.

Even in a text translated by a native speaker of English, unless he was both very good *and* completely free to deviate from the manuscript for the sake of making the English natural and colloquial, which is rare, I can tell if the English text was translated from a Japanese manuscript rather than originally composed in English.

While I am not equally sensitive WRT to Japanese manuscripts, I can also tell--without fail--when a Japanese manuscript was composed by a native speaker of a language other than Japanese.

With a Japanese manuscript written by a native speaker of Japanese, I can often make a good estimate of the age of the writer.

The grounds for theorizing that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew (described more thoroughly in the article linked by Daijal) may not qualify as "scientific," but to me, as an experienced translator, they are entirely plausible.

Actually, I'll go further than that: when you back-translate and in several places find wordplay that works in the second language but not the first, it's downright convincing.

[Havoc]

Wasn't snippy. Was just stating something. Why do you automatically assume someone is being snippy with you?

[ArrogantBustard]

So the "modern historical-critical method" is full of sewage ... I'm not surprised. Our ancestors were smarter than we give them credit for.

[Havoc]

Generally speaking, such things are readily evident in instruction sheets for major products and usually only because the translation is extremely poor. I would venture to say that looking at a KJV and not knowing from what language it was originally translated, it would not be possible to tell it came from Greek. It might be said that it would be easy to translate back into Greek; but, that would not neccessarily be the case. Greek is quite a specific language whereas the King's English was not by comparison.

I would further note that it has been pointed out that there are parts of the Greek language which have no parallel in Chaldee. This has been one of the sticking points from my understanding.

Furthermore, there are phrases that originate in english that are easier to say and more intuitive in other languages. That doesn't mean the original thought was in the other language, just that the happenstance exists. So it is counterintuitive to say that because it's easy to translate a piece from one language to another that it must have originated in the language being translated to. I think this is obvious to anyone who has taken foriegn language classes at any point in their life.

So, while it may be a cute aside, it isn't science nor is it evidence in a practical sense. It's about as useful as
looking at word patterns and trying to guess whether the same person wrote two works based on that. That isn't science either, though some have tried to pass it off as such.

In all honesty, the level of scientific honesty I've seen to date from others with regard to this work have extended to the point of stating as though factually that the book originated in Aramaic, that there is only one aramaic word for "rock" or "stone" and that 16:18 would have to be rendered a certain way because of this. It's stated as a given by many. The simple fact is that Chaldee has so many words for rock and stone that there is one to describe small cupped stones. Cupped, as in having a hollow that could hold water. There are over a dozen words for various forms of stone in Chaldee if memory serves. So that doesn't stand up. Further, no 1st century equivalant of Matthew has ever been found written in Aramaic. And if I'm not mistaken, nor have any of the other Gospels.

As someone who learned the scientific method early and took it to heart, i've little patience for consensus approaches that lack any factual grounding that can be tested and confirmed. That attitude permeates science and religion both. And it should be stopped, though I've no hope that it will, nor that junk science will cease to prevail.

[ex-snook]

"The thing to remember is that Crossan et al have an "agenda" as we like to say. That is to discredit the writings of the New Testament. "

Agree. But they are kicking against the goad. I'm in the middle of reading John again. Nothing couldn't be this perfect without the Hand of God.

[xzins]

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.

Good stuff in these paragraphs.

[RobbyS]

Have you seen the movie, "The Gospel of John."? The staging makes me realize how much of the "action" took place in and around Jerusalem and in direct confrontation with the Jewish leadership.

[ex-snook]

"Have you seen the movie, "The Gospel of John."? "

No. Thanks - Never even heard about it [Philadelphia area]. VCR available???

[dsc]

“Generally speaking, such things are readily evident in instruction sheets for major products and usually only because the translation is extremely poor.”

If you were to read my remarks closely, you would see that I was not talking about things that are obviously translations because they are poorly translated and because they are included with a product manufactured by a foreign company. A person in my business can tell where a person who hasn’t had the experience could not.

“I would venture to say that looking at a KJV and not knowing from what language it was originally translated, it would not be possible to tell it came from Greek.”

If one’s native language were the Elizabethan English of the KJV, and if one had spent years translating from Greek into Elizabethan English, there might be indications. (Yes, yes, I know, James was King, but it's still called Elizabethan English.)

“It might be said that it would be easy to translate back into Greek”

The argument being made is a good deal more substantial than “easy to translate.” I don’t know how familiar you are with the process of translation, but where two languages are structurally very different, different methodologies can be used, yielding different results.

I don’t want to go on at great length, but today I was doing something for a major international Japanese firm, and ran across a phrase that I translated (consulting memory here; I’m not at work now) “If the recovery in the US economy is sustained, the Japanese economy will also improve, allowing further growth in the digital components industry.”

A Japanese colleague pointed out that the Japanese read, “kakudai suru to kitai shitai,” which with absolute literalism would be rendered, “…the Japanese economy will also improve, and (someone) wants to expect that the digital components industry will expand.”

Now, if I saw the phrase, “the Japanese economy will also improve, allowing further growth in the digital components industry,” I could render that in Japanese in several different ways. But if I saw, in a document published by a Japanese company, “…and (someone) wants to expect,” I would know immediately that it was a translation of the words, “kitai shitai” and no others. This is not a matter of it being “easy to translate,” but a matter of knowing what the original had to have been.

Further, since we don’t say “I want to expect” something, but rather some variant of “I hope” or “I’d like to see,” the use of that odd wording is a further indication that it is a literal translation of something.

Now, suppose we knew that the native language of an author was Japanese, and we’re trying to figure out whether we’re looking at a translation of something he wrote or something written originally in English. We read along, and we find the odd expression, “I was in a situation of singing on four sides.”

Why in the world would a person fluent in English use such a phrase?

If we back-translate, lo and behold, we find the Japanese cliché “shimen souka.” This is a Chinese literary reference to a work in which the protagonist finds himself surrounded on all four sides by his enemies, whom he can hear singing. It’s used to mean, “beset on all sides,” or “surrounded by enemies,” “cornered like a rat,” etc.

A person fluent in English who was writing freely would have chosen one of the many common phrases to express the concept. He would not write “a situation of singing on four sides,” unless he were (a) so unskilled in English that he didn’t know any better, or (b) trying very hard to stay as close as possible to a Japanese original. Even in the latter case, only a person to whom English is a second language would write so oddly.

For these reasons, and particularly if one has run across many such cases, it is not only reasonable but justifiable to conclude that an English text purporting to be the work of a native Japanese speaker which includes the sentence, “I was in a situation of singing on four sides” is in fact a translation of a Japanese original. This is particularly true if the English text contains many such oddities.

Daijal’s article also refers to Hebrew word order and phrasing being used even though the words are Greek. I see this all the time.

In English, we might say, “Yesterday I read in the newspaper that it was going to snow today, so I cancelled my golf game.”

In Japanese, that would come out “Yesterday newspaper in snow today fall read so, golf cancel (I) did.” If an entire document looks like that, and it is attributed to a Japanese person, you don’t have to be Fellini to figure out what happened.

“I would further note that it has been pointed out that there are parts of the Greek language which have no parallel in Chaldee. This has been one of the sticking points from my understanding.”

The author of Daijal’s article is making a case that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew.

“Furthermore, there are phrases that originate in English that are easier to say and more intuitive in other languages.”

True, but not to the point. Hackneyed as it is, we understand what is meant by the phrase, “He’s a real cool cat.” Try saying, “Kare wa zuibun suzushii neko da” to a Japanese person and see how far you get. Since the phrase just isn’t used, or even understood, if you saw that in Japanese it would be reasonable to think it a literal translation of the English cliché.

“because it's easy”

You really need to get past that to the actual meat of the matter. (And that's something else that isn't said in Japanese, so if you saw "kadai no niku" you'd have to figure it was a literal translation from English.

“So, while it may be a cute aside, it isn't science nor is it evidence in a practical sense.”

Science and the scientific method are not the only ways of discovering or knowing things. The mind can look at an accumulation of phenomena, none of which in itself proves a proposition, and see that taken together they make the proposition so likely as to render doubt unreasonable.

A mother knows when her three-year-old is lying to her. How? Well, she just reads him. Is that “evidence in a practical sense?” Would you take that to court? Nonetheless, she *knows* and she is right.

“...looking at word patterns and trying to guess whether the same person wrote two works based on that. That isn't science either, though some have tried to pass it off as such.”

Nonetheless, it can be done. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen that a “new” poster to a forum was actually a known poster under a different handle. “Identified by sound of transmitter,” as they say in the electronic warfare community.

“the level of scientific honesty”

The scientific method is only a tool; and it is not the only tool available to us.

“that there is only one aramaic word for "rock" or "stone" and that 16:18 would have to be rendered a certain way because of this.”

If we’re being honest, let’s note that these arguments are advanced in rebuttal of an argument that asserts the use of a particular *Greek* word for "rock" or "stone" renders one certain meaning impossible. The argument to which you refer holds not that there is only one word for rock in Aramaic, but that because Jesus was speaking in Aramaic the Greek is not definitive.

“Further, no 1st century equivalant of Matthew has ever been found written in Aramaic.”

We know of many ancient works of which we have no surviving manuscript. And, once again, Daijal’s article argues that the original was Hebrew, not Aramaic.

“As someone who learned the scientific method early and took it to heart…”

How about if you took a group of 100 Americans, of whom one was me, and showed them 200 passages of English text, 100 of which were translations from Japanese and 100 of which were written by monolingual Americans, and I got them all right and the other 99 people did no better than random chance would allow? Would that be scientific?

I ask because that is the result I would expect from such an experiment. That being the case, the assertion of the author of Daijal’s article that a renowned scholar was able to detect that a document was a translation from Hebrew seems in no way outlandish to me.

“I've little patience for”

And I have increasingly less patience with people who insist that the scientific method is the sole key to knowledge. Just as one would not try to drive a nail with a piece of sandpaper, or to “intuit” one’s way to the correct answer to a engineering problem, there are things to which the scientific method cannot be applied but which are nonetheless discoverable.

“nor that junk science will cease to prevail.”

Among the things that science has not yet come to understand very well are the human mind and the workings of consciousness. Although many would decry it as “unscientific,” a human being can develop an “ear” for some things that allows him to make correct judgments where those who lack the required knowledge and experience cannot. This is surely far less outré than the idiot savant who has the mind of a small child and yet can solve complex problems of higher mathematics in his head.

[redgolum]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't someone post an article here that said some fragments of Matthew have been found in Japan dating back an incredible amount of time?

Still, it is refreshing to see that the tide is starting to turn against the so called "Biblical Criticism".

[Claud]

In all honesty, the level of scientific honesty I've seen to date from others with regard to this work have extended to the point of stating as though factually that the book originated in Aramaic....Further, no 1st century equivalant of Matthew has ever been found written in Aramaic. And if I'm not mistaken, nor have any of the other Gospels.

True enough about the putative original never having been found. But there's a pretty solid tradition that it DID once exist:

Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.

Perhaps these traditions are wrong, but to say there is NO evidence is not at all correct.

[siunevada]

Gee, I, I somehow missed the media furor that must certainly have created.

I'll bet Peter Jennings is breathlessly at work on a special presentation even as we speak. He must be so excited.

The skeptics have always brushed aside Irenaeus with no explanation. His description of Polycarp is interesting. Not a learned man but he remembered what John taught him.

[Salvation]

Thanks, Dajjal. Glad you stopped by!

[Salvation]

Our ancestors were smart!

Yes, I agree.............way back ancestors!

[RobbyS]

It's still in theatres although in limited release. The DVD should be out shortly. I recommend it because it relates the full-text of John --three or more hours without intermission.
The narration by Christopher Plummer, the rest by actors. Good prtoduction values, although I think tht a better director could have made some scenes less stagey.

[RobbyS]

They have to brush im aside because what he says doesn't serve their intentions.

BTW. The same critics accept what they Muslims say about Mohammed, although there is no proof that actually said what is in the Koran. The oldest manuscripts date more than a hundred years after his death.

[siunevada]

The same critics accept what the Muslims say about Mohammed

Well, there is a pretty good description about how he came to start reciting the verses of the Koran. The messenger squashes him and forces him to start reciting.

I can accept that he might have been visited by an angel.

I just don't think he got that angel's identity correct.

[Alex Murphy]

Good prtoduction values, although I think tht a better director could have made some scenes less stagey.

Production values aside, how would you compare it to the "Jesus Film" done by the Genesis Project back in the 70s with Brian Deacon as Jesus? That was a literal telling of the Gospel of Luke. I can imagine the acting is better in "Gospel of John" (Hey, we are talking about Christopher "Captain von Trapp"/"General Chang" Plummer after all).

What worries me is that "Gospel of John" might come off like the overly Hollywood-ized "Jesus of Nazareth", or worse yet the 50s film "King of Kings". I can take underacting. Ham-fisted, soap-opera style overacting is worse.

[dangus]

TWO HUNDRED to THREE HUNDRED! There are MANUSCRIPTS that old!

Here's what happened accprding to the best evidence available:

Around 50 AD., St. Matthew the apostle wrote an Aramaic gospel.

A decade or two later, St. Peter the apostle's secretary, John Mark wrote the gospel of Mark. The catalyst may have been St. Peter's death (c. AD 64), or his expectation of an imminent death.

St. Luke's gospel was probably written in the AD '60's as well. He claims first-hand witnesses, perhaps even including the Blessed Virgin Mary, given the intimacy of his birth narrative, or a close acquaintance of hers. (The other principles in the narrative, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zecharaiah, and John the Baptist were long deceased.) The presumption that Luke was written after the fall of the temple is not necessary, even presuming the (apostasy of the) inability of Jesus to prophecize. Given the abrupt and unthematic end of Luke's story (which is in the "Gospel of Luke" and continued in "the Acts of the Apostles"), it was possibly finished immediately after the events at the end of Acts took place (c. AD 64)

At some point, perhaps around 90 AD, Matthew was translated into Greek and substantially revised. The result is that there are almost no passages in Mark that aren't recorded in Matthew, although sometimes the phrasing is essentially identical, sometimes one version is shortened, and sometimes there are significant differences. It is not certain whether the apostle Matthew was the person who revised the gospel. Some (non-fundamentalists) have suggested that apparent errors were inserted into the text by the revisionist.

The portions of Matthew which are identical to Mark vary in style, wordings and theme from the other portions of Matthew. Therefore, it is much more likely that Mark's gospel was added to Matthew than that Mark is an abridgement of Mark. It has been suggested that Mark may have been considered authoritative. (Catholics might suggest that this is because Mark was authorized by Peter.)

Luke includes passages found in Matthew but not Mark, Mark but not Matthew, and both Matthew and Mark. It even includes events recorded in John but not Matthew or Mark. Luke rarely uses the exact same wording as another gospel, however. It is quite possible that Luke interviewed both Matthew and Mark (or Peter).

The gospel of John is radically different from the others. It tells of very few events (only 7 prior to Jesus going to Jerusalem to die) and expounds on them greatly. The style is very similar to other Greek writings, so was considered for a long time to have been written at a very late date (even the 2nd century), after Christianity had been influenced more by Greek thought.

The Dead Sea scrolls confirm, however, that the Essenes (the branch of Judaism from which John came) were deeply into Greek literature. And whereas John was earlier expected to have been an ignorant fisherman, it now seems plausible that he was pointed out to Jesus for his excellence in writing. Of course, the gospel itself asserted that it was written bu John's own hand.

Even so, John was (according to Tradition) very young when Jesus met him. If he wrote the gospel as he approached death, it may still have been written in the AD 90s, or even the first part of the 2nd century.

Some scholars have suggested that the gospel of John initially existed as several several seperate, thematic scrolls, including one used for Passover celebrations. This would explain the disjointed nature of the text; its abrupt switching of topics, even to the point of jumping back in chronology; and its apparent lack of chronology (John records the cleansing of the Temple near its start, whereas others place it at the end of his ministry. Given the events within, it would be surprising that he did it twice.).

Oddly, the story of the stoning of the adulteress ("Who shall cast the first stone?") is a very late addition to the gospel of John; where that story originated is unknown. Also, verses of the introductory poem (Jn 1:1-18), once thought to be of very late origin, were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Apparently, they existed as an earlier prophecy, to which John adds to so that he may explain its fulfillment.


In summary:
Matthew: AD 50, by the apostle, revised after AD 90.
Mark: AD 60-65, by John Mark, authorized by Peter
Luke: c. AD 64, or somewhat earlier, by a companion of Paul.
John: Late 1st century, possibly start of 2nd century, by the apostle.

What is explained here is NOT a consensus of historical researchers. Many researchers have refused to amend their theories in the light of new evidence. Many others make presumptions that the gospels contain errors (or even what must be called lies). It is my attempt to select historical analyses of researchers which are in agreement with newer, well-substantiated evidence which they many researchers have ignored, and the presumption of inerrancy of the Holy Spirit which guided the writing of the apostles.