Posted on 12/15/2010 12:02:02 PM PST by marshmallow
We know more about the authors of the four gospels and when they wrote from tradition than from any other source, but on the whole the best efforts of Scripture scholars over the past two hundred years have done very little to challenge, and much to support, the reliability of the Church’s traditional assertions. Various academic fads have come and gone, not infrequently fueled by an anti-Christian or anti-Church bias which demands a very late dating of the gospels. But each time a scholar has gone off in some new direction, fresh discoveries and arguments have moved the preponderance of academic opinion back toward what has been commonly held from the beginning.
It is interesting that the same fads and biases have had a great impact on a second critical question about the gospels, that is, how quickly the four gospels we accept today were received as the only four inspired accounts of the life of Christ. This question is the subject of a new book by C. E. Hill, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, entitled Who Chose the Gospels: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. The lurid subtitle is actually aimed at debunking the widespread myth that there were initially a great many gospels, and only relatively late did one Christian party win out. According to this myth, “orthodoxy” is a very tardy imposition by the victorious on their less successful competitors.
I’ll be reviewing Hill’s book (the first chapter is very promising), but for now let’s summarize what we know generally about the origins of the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, based on tradition as largely corroborated by scholarly studies through the years.
Matthew: Matthew is the tax collector Levi mentioned in the gospels. Tradition is unanimous that this was the first gospel, written originally in Aramaic, which is why it comes first in our Bibles today. But we have no fragments of an original Aramaic text, and the Greek text that we do have seems in some respects to draw on Mark’s Gospel, so some scholars conclude that Matthew’s gospel took final form only after Mark wrote. Still, it could not have been much later, for given Matthew’s themes, it is inconceivable that he would not have noted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 if those events had taken place before he wrote. Therefore the Gospel must have been written at least as early as the late 60’s.
Mark: Mark's is considered by most scholars to be the earliest gospel, though of course there are earlier references to Christ and His teachings in the letters of Peter and Paul. According to tradition, Mark was an assistant or interpreter to Peter, whose memories of Christ he noted down. Then, shortly after Peter’s crucifixion, Mark wrote his gospel to keep Peter’s memories of Christ alive in the Church. Thus Mark’s gospel is dated to the mid-60’s AD, possibly shortly before the final text of Matthew, but not by much.
Luke: Luke was an early Christian physician who wrote both his gospel and its companion volume, The Acts of the Apostles, which continues the account of the origins of Christianity from Christ’s Ascension through the establishment and early operations of the Church. Luke appears to rely in some places on Mark. He also stresses Christ’s words about the destruction of Jerusalem (21:5-38) so much that it seems he knew of their fulfillment. This places his gospel after AD 70, but probably before 85, as he betrays no awareness of Domitian’s persecutions or the struggles between the Church and rabbinic Judaism which began about that time.
John: John is of course the “beloved disciple”, who was very young at the time of Our Lord's passion, death and resurrection. Tradition holds that John wrote the gospel while in exile on the island of Patmos in about AD 90, and indeed everything about the text suggests a depth of theological reflection which is consistent with a mature mind many years after the events in question. Scholars are unanimous in the conclusion that this is the latest of the gospels.
Some scholars argue that the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were all in circulation before AD 70, while the latest respectable positions are probably 70 for Mark, 85 for Matthew, and 90 for Luke, with John placed as late as AD 100.
I will not dwell on the debates over precise dates, for two reasons. First, contemporary scholars are now arguing over just a few years, and certainly not centuries. The days of my academic youth, when we had to defend reasonable dates against largely ideological efforts to push the gospels well back into the second century, are long gone. Second, the more intriguing question is really something quite a bit deeper, and it is also where the contemporary action is. If orthodoxy is not a late imposition, how do we know that precisely these four gospels are special? Why are they considered inspired accounts of the life of Christ, and—as C. E. Hill asks—how were they selected as somehow “canonical”?
This is a question that lies at the heart of Christianity as we have received it, a question generally appreciated by Catholics, who do not believe that Scripture is self-evidently inspired or that it can explain itself. But it is often unrecognized by Protestants except when pushed by scholars with anti-Christian axes to grind. Therefore I’m doubly interested in the work on this question done by C. E. Hill, who is after all a professor at a Protestant seminary. I'm betting we can learn something. Stay tuned.
Ping for later
“Who wrote the gospels?”
God!
Next question
Ask the Reverend from Blazing Saddles.
We KNOW who wrote them, but WHO PUT THEM TOGETHER AS OUR BIBLE???
The article makes exactly that point.
I think most thoughtful scholars would avoid words like "inconceivable" and "must have" on a topic such as this.
While written by mortal men, the inspiration was the same source for those honorable men who penned our US Constitution - God inspired means precisely that. It doesn’t mean parsing the mortal qualifications (or lack thereof), foibles, pecularities, frailties, etc. of the writers....in my mind, these futile academic exercises for academia’s sake clouds the message in favor of auditing the messenger.....
ST. MATTHEW, APOSTLE and EVANGELIST
St. Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist (Dom Guéranger)
Call No Man Father: Understanding Matthew 23:9
On St. Matthew, A Model of Acceptance of God's Mercy
Remnants of the monastery in which the relics of St. Matthews may reside discovered in Kirghizia
Matthew 16:13-19 exegesis
Acts And Martyrdom Of St. Matthew The Apostle
ST MARK, EVANGELIST, PATRON SAINT OF VENICE, Feast: April 25
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF SAINT MARK THE EVANGELIST, APRIL 25
Orthodox Feast of St. Mark the Apostle & Evangelist, May 3
Saint Mark the Evangelist
Saint Luke, physician who chronicled Christ's life, to be celebrated October 18
Christmas - Gospel According to Saint Luke
Life of St. Luke the Evangelist
American's donation lets pope peruse oldest copy of St. Luke's Gospel
Orthodox Feast of St. Luke the Evangelist
The Life Of The Holy Apostle And Evangelist Luke
It Could Be St. Luke's Body, After All.
Happy St. Luke's!
Body of St Luke Gains Credibility
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. John [Catholic Caucus]
Feast of St. John (Apostle and Evangelist)
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. John [Catholic Caucus]
Feast of St. John (Apostle and Evangelist)
The Falling Asleep of St. John the Evangelist and Theologian September 26
Where the Beloved Disciple Finally Rested
Orthodox Feast of The Falling Asleep of St. John the Evangelist and Theologian, September 26
St. John, Apostle and Evangelist
Mary's House — Walking in the Footsteps of St. John
Even before Pagels was alleged to have committed academic malfeasance, Philip Jenkins, a professor from Penn St, in his work “Hidden Gospels” decimates Pagels poor scholarship and defends the earlier dating and legitimate acceptance of the canonical gospels. Jenkins then dates the Gnostic gospels to the 2nd and 3rd century and debunks much of the myth introduced by Pagels and her ilk. He explains in a logical fashion why the academics of the last forty ears felt a need to debunk orthodox christianity of the 1st century.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:
Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!
A professor at my alma mater seminary, but I was at the Charlotte, NC, campus.
Conservative, orthodox Christians of all stripes can (and really should) be friends.
I really don’t think there are a lot of serious conservative bible scholars who will claim the US Constitution and Declaration were “inspired” in the same way the holy Scriptures were inspired, that is directly by the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of biblical inspiration—that is, literally “God breathed” is quite different than the idea of high or inspired writing—of other, lesser works. Shakespeare, or Milton, or Plato are surely inspired, but not, without error like the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
No serious Christian scholar that I know of will claim that the Declaration or Constitution are inspired of the Holy Spirit and inerrant. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson or Madison wouldn’t either—which is why the Amendment process is built in.
I began serious reading and study of the Bible (KJV) back in early 63, 1963, that is.
In general I begin to see throughout the New Testament: “God is not a respecter of persons.” and “With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Wow! This renewed and strengthened my faith! When I got home from the office, I could not wait to get home and read more Scriptures.
I learned very quickly: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)
Then I memorized: “But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6)
Later I learned: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1) And in Romans 6:23; “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” And one more in Romans 10:17: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Back in those years I rejoiced that “For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.”(John 3:17)
Even learning that Matthew presents the Lord Jesus as “King”
Mark presents Jesus as “Servant” Luke present Jesus as “Man.” and last the Gospel of John presents Jesus as “God.”
If I’m deceived in knowing I have; by God’s grace have eternal life, joy and peace, I’ll chose that deception!
But I know whom I have believed,and am fully persuaded that God has saved me through His Son Jesus Christ, and given me everlasting life.”
I'm very series, a Christian and I study.
"Does that happen to be anyone foolish enough to claim to know the will and purpose of God?"
How does one live righteously without doing exactly that?
"To me, the US Constitution is God-inspired, regardless of bystanders' opinions."
Didn't you just do what you called 'foolish' above?
[Note to self: Stay off the Religion Forum......not worth arguing with closeminded people]
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.