Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

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.

Saunders, Rev. William. "Who Really Wrote the Gospels?" Arlington Catholic Herald.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.