Priest Confused About Apostles

Dale · May 23, 2014

I ran across a debate, posted online, on Sola Scriptura between a Protestant and a Catholic priest. The debate is between David Riggs, identified as Christian, and Father Michael Lopez, Catholic.

One of the statements by Father Lopez startled me.

Father Lopez:
Do any of the gospel writers, identify themselves as apostles or commissioned by apostles? No.

Link:
Debate with Catholic on Sola Scriptura (Riggs Vs Lopez)
(Go to the link, click on Denial, and go to the fourth paragraph.)

I must dispute this claim. It is true that the Gospel authors do not introduce themselves the way that Paul does in his letters. They don't introduce themselves in the first sentence or the first paragraph. Consider the following.

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. Follow me, he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
--Matthew 9:9 NIV

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
--Matthew 10:2-4 NIV

The Gospel of Matthew clearly identifies the author of the Gospel as Matthew the tax collector, first called by Jesus as a disciple and then set aside as one of the twelve Apostles.

One of them, the disciple Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, 'Ask him which one he means.'
Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, 'Lord, who is it?'
--John 13:24-25 NIV

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is going to betray you?')
--John 21: 20 NIV

This is the disciple who testified to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
--John 21:24 NIV

The Gospel of John identifies the author of the Gospel as the disciple Jesus loved, present at the last supper, the prayer in Gethsemane, the Crucifixion and other Gospel events. This clearly makes the author an Apostle, even a leader among the Apostles.

*

*

Dale · May 23, 2014

What of the other two Gospels, Mark and Luke?

“Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.”
--Colossians 4:18 NIV

“Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.”
--2 Timothy 4:11 NIV

“Epaphras, my fellow prisoner, in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.”
--Philemon verse 24

In these passages Paul repeatedly identifies Luke and Mark as friends, “fellow workers,” and fellow evangelists. The New Testament identifies Matthew and John as Apostles, and the Apostle Paul vouches for Mark and Luke and puts them among his closest associates.

*

*

topcare · May 23, 2014

Technically Fr. Lopez is right

ViaCrucis · May 24, 2014

topcare said:
Technically Fr. Lopez is right

I really don't see, outside of tradition, any reason to ascribe the traditional authors to the four gospels.

I don't see that as a bad thing either. But Fr. Lopez is right, none of the four evangelists identify themselves, and the OP's arguments to the contrary don't really counter that, they only make assertions based on speculative interpretation of the listed passages.

No where does the author of Matthew identify himself as St. Matthew/Levi the tax collector. Likewise, Mark, Luke, and John never do anything likewise.

The closest we get perhaps is John, in that John identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and places himself in the actual events of the gospel's narrative--such as having the second seat of importance at the Last Supper (the right hand side of the host). Is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" St. John the son of Zebedee? Going by internal evidence alone there is simply no way to know one way or another.

-CryptoLutheran

football5680 · May 24, 2014

The claim was correct. The passages you quoted were in the third person point of view and they do not identify themselves as apostles.

If you take away the fact that Church tradition has attributed the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, could you identify the speaker? No. The Gospel of Matthew says Jesus came and saw Matthew sitting at the tax collector booth. For your connection to be valid he would have to say something like "Jesus came and saw me sitting at the tax collector booth," or Jesus came and saw me, Matthew sitting at the tax collector booth."

The same thing is happening in the Gospel of John. It is written in the third person.

We all believe that they were written by the apostles but from the text you cannot derive who wrote it.

In these passages Paul repeatedly identifies Luke and Mark as friends, fellow workers, and fellow evangelists. The New Testament identifies Matthew and John as Apostles, and the Apostle Paul vouches for Mark and Luke and puts them among his closest associates.

You must prove your initial statement before moving on. From the text we cannot say that Saint Luke or Saint Mark wrote the Gospels which bear their names. Until you can prove this, we cannot go on any further. Saint Paul's statements would prove that they are credible sources but you would have to prove their authorship for their credibility to matter.

rockytopva · May 24, 2014

Romans 16:22

22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

It looks like Paul had another write the Epistle to the Romans. I have often wondered about the eyesight of the apostles, whether or not they remained good. The Apostle John wrote three epistles in his 90's. I have often wondered if another did not write I, II, III John.

Albion · May 24, 2014

It looks like Fr. Lopez was correct. They may have attributed to themselves some of the characteristics of an apostle, but they did not "identify" themselves "as" apostles.

timewerx · May 24, 2014

If we consider non-canon scriptures like Book of Enoch which is btw, referenced in the Book of Jude, then we'll see that the original apostles are doing the right thing while Paul is wrong to put confirmation in all his letters.

In the Book of Enoch, it is sin to place confirmation in writing. It is a teaching passed down to humans by the fallen angels. It's no different to swearing which Jesus said we must not do.

GoingByzantine · May 25, 2014

When I first actually considered that some scripture, especially the synoptic gospels, were not written by their actual authors I was shocked and disheartened. However, in time I came to grow and accept this fact, knowing that the actual writers probably received stories first hand from the apostles meaning that it is all still word.

In church, our parish priest usually tells us in his Homily about the authorship of "passage x" or "gospel y" and it truly helps me to understand the point of view of the authors.

GratiaCorpusChristi · May 25, 2014

ViaCrucis said:
I really don't see, outside of tradition, any reason to ascribe the traditional authors to the four gospels.

I don't see that as a bad thing either. But Fr. Lopez is right, none of the four evangelists identify themselves, and the OP's arguments to the contrary don't really counter that, they only make assertions based on speculative interpretation of the listed passages.

No where does the author of Matthew identify himself as St. Matthew/Levi the tax collector. Likewise, Mark, Luke, and John never do anything likewise.

The closest we get perhaps is John, in that John identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and places himself in the actual events of the gospel's narrative--such as having the second seat of importance at the Last Supper (the right hand side of the host). Is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" St. John the son of Zebedee? Going by internal evidence alone there is simply no way to know one way or another.

-CryptoLutheran

This ^

Dale · May 25, 2014

Father Lopez also says:
Nine of the 12 apostles (all except John, Peter, and Matthew) thus orally taught the Word of God and never wrote a thing.

Link:
Debate with Catholic on Sola Scriptura (Riggs Vs Lopez)
(Go to the link, click on First Rebuttal, and go to paragraph 8.)

Lopez is trying to emphasize the oral tradition and de-emphasize the importance of writing. Actually, we don't know that the other Apostles never wrote. We only know that if they did, it hasn't come down to us. Of course, all the Apostles except John were martyred and so their time on earth to compose books was limited by early death.

Scholars have theorized that the Gospel writers were guided by documents that have not come down to us. Witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus wrote brief accounts of the sayings of Jesus and events of his life, the thinking goes. These are sometimes referred to as testimony books. They helped to preserve the teachings of Jesus long enough for the Gospels to be written. The best known of these is the M source, which stands for Matthean Material. Scholars have talked about the M source, Q source, and L source, as we as an Document of Infancy and Antiochan Document. These have not been found, but it is possible that they were never widely circulated. Any of the Apostles could have written or been involved in the writing of any of these documents, if the scholars are right in positing them. As a Catholic priest, it is surprising that Father Lopez isn't aware of these theories.

Besides logic and scholarly opinion, there is another reason to question the sweeping statement that most of the original Apostles never wrote anything.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us. Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
--Luke 1:1-4 NIV

In the first words of the Gospel of Luke, he tells us that many have tried to draw up an account, that is, write an account of the ministry of Jesus. Luke may be talking about the documents posited by scholars that helped to preserve the teaching of Jesus. Or, he could be talking about writings completely unknown to us, and some of these could have originated with the Apostles. This seems likely since Luke mentions those who were eyewitnesses from the first. All we know for sure is that the records Luke is talking about have not come down to us.
By starting from the assumption that most of the Apostles never wrote an account, Father Lopez starts from a non-fact. We simply don't know that it is true.

*

*

concretecamper · May 26, 2014

Dale said:
Lopez is trying to emphasize the oral tradition and de-emphasize the importance of writing. Actually, we don't know that the other Apostles never wrote. We only know that if they did, it hasn't come down to us. Of course, all the Apostles except John were martyred and so their time on earth to compose books was limited by early death.

In a time where very few could write or read, oral tradition was the mode of communicating the gospel message... no one can argue that. Even up through the 16th century where about only 10% could read...... counting on the ability of people to read in order to hear the gospel message is ludicrous.

Do you know that all the apostles were capable of writing?

topcare · May 26, 2014

Dale said:
Father Lopez also says:
Nine of the 12 apostles (all except John, Peter, and Matthew) thus orally taught the Word of God and never wrote a thing.

Once again Fr. speaks the truth. But you'll ignore this and most other post to get your anti Catholic agenda through

Standing Up · May 26, 2014

Dale said:
Father Lopez also says:
Nine of the 12 apostles (all except John, Peter, and Matthew) thus orally taught the Word of God and never wrote a thing.

Link:
Debate with Catholic on Sola Scriptura (Riggs Vs Lopez)
(Go to the link, click on First Rebuttal, and go to paragraph 8.)

Lopez is trying to emphasize the oral tradition and de-emphasize the importance of writing.

All of the apostles taught orally from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (at that time).

Perhaps it was Paul who had the vision, the prompting by the Spirit, to first begin the recording process. After all, he is the one with the insight, writing Romans 10 (as regards the OT and thus the NT). He knew they would all die and had to leave a "it is written" record.

Christ renamed James and John sons of thunder. They were the first and last disciples to die. Between them the NT was written.

That said as explanation, it is also important to note that Tradition is easily dismissed as whims of men. Just ask an EO what it is and then ask an RC what it is. And get them to name a few that were extant in Paul's time that the apostles, nay the Spirit, neglected to have them write down.

GratiaCorpusChristi · May 26, 2014

Dale said:
Scholars have theorized that the Gospel writers were guided by documents that have not come down to us. Witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus wrote brief accounts of the sayings of Jesus and events of his life, the thinking goes. These are sometimes referred to as testimony books. They helped to preserve the teachings of Jesus long enough for the Gospels to be written. The best known of these is the M source, which stands for Matthean Material. Scholars have talked about the M source, Q source, and L source, as we as an Document of Infancy and Antiochan Document. These have not been found, but it is possible that they were never widely circulated. Any of the Apostles could have written or been involved in the writing of any of these documents, if the scholars are right in positing them. As a Catholic priest, it is surprising that Father Lopez isn't aware of these theories.

Even this much of your post is wrong. The M source isn't even close to the most important hypothesized pre-gospel text. And M and L aren't widely agreed upon; important scholars like James Dunn don't recognize their existence.

Dale · May 28, 2014

ViaCrucis said:
I really don't see, outside of tradition, any reason to ascribe the traditional authors to the four gospels.

I don't see that as a bad thing either. But Fr. Lopez is right, none of the four evangelists identify themselves, and the OP's arguments to the contrary don't really counter that, they only make assertions based on speculative interpretation of the listed passages.

No where does the author of Matthew identify himself as St. Matthew/Levi the tax collector. Likewise, Mark, Luke, and John never do anything likewise.

The closest we get perhaps is John, in that John identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and places himself in the actual events of the gospel's narrative--such as having the second seat of importance at the Last Supper (the right hand side of the host). Is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" St. John the son of Zebedee? Going by internal evidence alone there is simply no way to know one way or another.

-CryptoLutheran

It seems to me that when you have a written source that can be analyzed, you are hypercritical. You object to connecting the dots. On the other hand, when there are vague appeals to oral tradition, far more vague than any written source, you have no criticism. You accept it, no questions asked. I think it's far better to take what we have from written sources, even if the authors were not as concerned about making authorship clear as we would be.

*

*

ViaCrucis · May 28, 2014

Dale said:
It seems to me that when you have a written source that can be analyzed, you are hypercritical. You object to connecting the dots. On the other hand, when there are vague appeals to oral tradition, far more vague than any written source, you have no criticism. You accept it, no questions asked. I think it's far better to take what we have from written sources, even if the authors were not as concerned about making authorship clear as we would be.

*

*

I don't believe I've said anything about oral sources one way or the other.

What I said is that the authorship of the four Evangelists cannot be determined by internal evidence. The texts simply offer nothing for us themselves by which to make any sort of determination.

The only reason the first gospel is attributed to St. Matthew is because tradition says so, the text certainly doesn't. Same with the Mark, Luke, and John.

I didn't say that tradition was right or wrong, just that it's the only thing we have by which to attach the names we have for the four gospels.

It's not a matter of the authors not giving us as much detail as we would like, it's that they, with the exception of the fourth Evangelist, don't tell us at all who they are. And then in the case of John's gospel, the author only identifies himself cryptically.

-CryptoLutheran

Dale · May 28, 2014

Father Lopez:
Paul passes this oral word to Timothy, who is to guard this deposit of faith through the help of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 1:13-14). Faith comes by hearing, not reading the word of God (Rom. 10:17). How long will this oral word of God last? 1 Peter 1:24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord abides for ever." That word is the good news which was preached to you." Forever. Yes it references Isaiah, but Peter is calling upon Isaiah as a witness to his preached apostolic witness of Christ: oral tradition.
Link:
Debate with Catholic on Sola Scriptura (Riggs Vs Lopez)
(Go to the link, click on Denial, and go to the eighth paragraph, with a 2 for a numbered point.)

Here Lopez cites several parts of the Bible in support of his belief in oral traditon.

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
--Romans 10:17 NIV

It doesn't occur to Lopez that a scroll or parchment would be read aloud in church, and this would be the most likely way that a member of the public would come in contact with the words. Hearing doesn't exclude written records. In fact, Paul says:

Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.
--1 Timothy 4:13 NIV

The public reading of Scripture that Paul talks about here may be what results in people hearing the message, as he said in Romans.

Lopez points to 1 Peter 1:24-25, where Peter quotes Isaiah 40:8.

The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever.
--Isaiah 40:8 NIV

Lopez assumes that Isaiah's word of our God means oral teaching. While Isaiah undoubtedly used oral teaching, it does not follow that Isaiah took a dim view of written records.

Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness.
Isaiah 30:8 NIV

Isaiah understood the value of scrolls and tablets in preserving the truth for future generations.

Lopez assumes that the deposit of faith which Paul gave to Timothy was in the form of oral teaching. Yet Paul also used written documents.

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
--2 Timothy 4:13 NIV

*

*

topcare · May 28, 2014

Again Fr. Lopez is right and you are wrong. Christianity didn't start in the 20th century and for the first 300 years there was no NT. It would be best if you actually knew what your were talking about and drop your anti Catholic bias

Dale · Jun 2, 2014

topcare said:
Again Fr. Lopez is right and you are wrong. Christianity didn't start in the 20th century and for the first 300 years there was no NT. It would be best if you actually knew what your were talking about and drop your anti Catholic bias

Who said Christianity started in the 20th Century?

*

*

Priest Confused About Apostles

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

The Eucharist is Life

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Love to pray! :)

Facilitator

the village i--o--t--

Seeking the Narrow Road

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Senior Veteran

Member of His Church

The Eucharist is Life

On and on

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Senior Veteran

Confessional Lutheran

Senior Veteran

The Eucharist is Life

Senior Veteran

Similar threads