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.

[Salvation]

I thought this would be an interesting discussion.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
Never Never Land		1,138.00	34	33.47			238.00	19

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Salvation]

Three different ways to be an author:

**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.**

[Salvation]

**new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors.**

Any comments?

[dsc]

"I thought this would be an interesting discussion."

I found it a blessed relief, after some of the whacko stuff we've seen recently. Thanks for posting it.

[dsc]

"Any comments?"

"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."

So, we have hard proof that the Gospel of Matthew was penned not "hundreds of years" after Our Lord's Resurrection, but earlier than the year 41.

Gee, I, I somehow missed the media furor that must certainly have created. I presume all the skeptics have stopped asserting the late authorship of Matthew, and are appropriately chagrined and apologetic.

[Salvation]

**I found it a blessed relief, after some of the whacko stuff we've seen recently.** LOL! One of the reasons I posted it!

[Salvation]

**So, we have hard proof that the Gospel of Matthew was penned not "hundreds of years" after Our Lord's Resurrection, but earlier than the year 41.**

Very true.

And we know that Luke traveled with Paul (Acts of the Apostles -- so he got some of his knowledge from Paul, but may have also known Jesus personally. Remember Paul was persecuting the followers of Christ.

[Jeff Chandler]

I remember reading about a linguist who was translating the Gospel of Matthew from Greek into Hebrew. He was astonished to discover that the Greek rendered into Hebrew of a poetic form common to Scripture, indicating that the Greek was actually translated originally from Hebrew! That would most certainly date Matthew within 70 years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Catholic Discussion Ping list.

[dsc]

"...indicating that the Greek was actually translated originally from Hebrew!"

That's very interesting. I didn't know that.

"That would most certainly date Matthew within 70 years of Jesus' death and resurrection."

And now the Dead Sea Scrolls have pushed it back to AD 40.

I'm beginning to believe that the 20th century was one in which Satan was particularly strong, but that now his power is waning.

[Sloth]

the teacher said that the Gospels were written by the early Church community probably between the years 200 and 300

Foolish. The author of Luke, who also wrote Acts, was personally present for some of the events portrayed (e.g., Acts 16:13 -- "And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there."

[Desdemona]

The notion that the Gospels are the product of the early Church community in the third century is "strange" indeed.

Yes, since one critereon of inclusion in the New Testament was that the books had to be written within 100 years of Christ's death and ressurection.

[attagirl]

Thanks for posting this. I'd read about 5 yrs. ago that Matt. was now believed to be the first gospel written, but I didn't know that it was based on Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship.

I'll have to remember the name Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis who indicates that Matt. was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language.

I'd say that's more compelling than having some Johnny come lately from the 20th century saying Q or Madame X wrote a gospel which others were based on long after Jesus ascended.

And, yeah--no media acclamation of this. At least not on the order of finding some box with Jesus' brother's name inscribed on it--or whatever (hoax that it was).

[Salvation]

Luke rarely uses "we" in his narravtive in Acts. Usually "we" was used in references to boating and surviving storms.

Luke ususally writes in the third person.

But I agree that he was there for some of the incidents in Acts. Just wanted to point out that the "we" was a kind of writing with a history for that day.

[RobbyS]

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. That is why the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" is said, with a shred of evidence to back the assertion, to be the "first" gospel. This kind of thing has been going for for more than 200 years, so that the historical foundation odf Christianity might be undermined.

[Havoc]

You should go read Michael Crichton's recent article on junk science. There is not a shred of supportable evidence of any factual kind that supports Matthew having been written originally in anything other than greek. Nor was there a need for it to be written in other than Greek. The claim that it was written in Aramaic arose out of a need to support another claim that has since been surrendered. It also arose out of an ignorance of Chaldee. Marvelling about poetic nature is cute; but, it isn't science nor is it factual. I'll underscore that it's cute cause it's just the sort of thing you say when you want someone to buy something without support or make it more likely that they may. And this is exactly the sort of thing that Crichton attacked and attacked with clarity.

Responsibility and credibility go hand in hand. The earliest known texts found have all been in Greek. No first century text has ever been found in Chaldee. And the point that was trying to be made by saying it was is lost in the facts surrounding the language. Some people need to do a better job on homework.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[Jeff Chandler]

Some people need to do a better job on homework.

You don't have to get snippy about it. I was merely sharing something I read, not professing to be an expert on the subject.

[Dajjal]

Contemporary Catholic Biblical Scholarship
By Msgr. Michael J. Wrenn
A good summarization of the work of Robinson, Tresmontant, and Carmignac on dating the four Gospels before 70 AD, written in Hebrew (and why the second gospel ought to be called the Gospel of Peter, which Mark collated and translated into Greek).