Do we know who wrote the Gospels?

[Ave Maria]

I heard someone say in a different forum that we don't really know who wrote the Gospels and that there is doubt that the disciples actually wrote them. Does anyone have more information on this? Thanks in advance!

 

[Radagast]

Start by reading Eusebius.

We know Luke wrote Luke, John wrote John, Mark wrote Mark based on what Peter said, and Matthew wrote the Aramaic Sayings of Our Lord (a Greek version of which was combined with Mark to give the present Matthew).

"Matthew wrote down the sayings in Hebrew and each translated it as he was able", (Papias cited in Eusebius, H.E., 3.39; cf. 3.24).

"Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, H.E., 5.8)

"the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ - Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language. Next came that of Mark, who followed Peter's instructions in writing it ... Next came that of Luke, who wrote for Gentile converts ... Last of all came John's." (Origen cited in Eusebius, H.E., 6.25).

"This, too, the Presbyter {John} says: 'Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.'" (Papias cited in Eusebius)

-- Radagast

 

[artybloke]

We don't know who wrote any of the Gospels. We have traditions - and Eusebius (who wrote a few centuries after the Gospels were written) reflects them. But traditions are not facts; and there is no evidence (short of signed autograph copies which we don't have - and even that wouldn't be certain) that the names attached to the Gospels are those of the people who wrote them. I don't think you can discount traditions; they may contain the germ of a fact, but they may also simply be rumours that circulated among the churches long after they were written.

The Synoptic Gospels share enough similarity for the hypothesis of the Marcan-Q origins of Mathew and Luke to hold some water, and is probably still the majority view among NT critics. But that comes from internal evidence within the texts; there is no external evidence from the time they were written of who wrote any of the Gospels.

The question is, does it matter? Does it make them somehow inauthentic? I don't believe it does. The truth of the Gospel message is still there.

 

[Radagast]

... the hypothesis of the Marcan-Q origins of Mathew and Luke to hold some water, and is probably still the majority view among NT critics. But that comes from internal evidence within the texts; there is no external evidence from the time they were written of who wrote any of the Gospels...

Well, the traditions have been passed on orally and in writing from the 1st century. And the internal evidence within the texts supports them: I think Q is clearly a Greek translation of the original Sayings of Matthew, for example.

-- Radagast

 

[artybloke]

I think Q is clearly a Greek translation of the original Sayings of Matthew, for example.

It's certainly a possibility. But I wouldn't stake my life on it. And by the way, what are the written 1st century references to the authorship of the Gospel?

 

[Radagast]

It's certainly a possibility. But I wouldn't stake my life on it. And by the way, what are the written 1st century references to the authorship of the Gospel?

The earliest written references are 2nd and 3rd century (see posts above).

And how we view the Gospels will depend very much on whether we think they incorporate eyewitness accounts.

-- Radagast

 

[muffler dragon]

We don't know who wrote any of the Gospels. We have traditions - and Eusebius (who wrote a few centuries after the Gospels were written) reflects them. But traditions are not facts; and there is no evidence (short of signed autograph copies which we don't have - and even that wouldn't be certain) that the names attached to the Gospels are those of the people who wrote them. I don't think you can discount traditions; they may contain the germ of a fact, but they may also simply be rumours that circulated among the churches long after they were written.

I would have to agree. I have read that the names of the "Gospels" is not even mentioned until the middle of the second century. The first "New Testament" was by Marcion in 150 CE and he only had Luke.

m.d.

 

[Peter]

These "traditions" of which you speak are the very thing that gives the gospels their authority. For they have been maintained by the Church, the "Fullness of Him who fills all things." For Christ is Her true head and she His true body. Being one with Christ, then Christ has faithfully maintained the "tradition" of authorship within His chosen body. This is our proof.

Peace.

Peter

 

[AudioArtist]

Well that's just what my faith needs-no proof of the authorship of the gospels. What makes them any different, then, to the hundreds of other gospels written about Jesus?


Edit-sorry if this came across as harsh, I'm going through a lot of doubt at the moment.

 

[Peter]

Audioartist, I see you are a young person. My oldest son is also 17. And, remembering back to my youth, I recall asking the same questions. The good news is the answers are out there (not like X-Files). And they're not that hard to find.

Again, I offer up the proof of the Church. For 2000 years she has been guided by the Holy Spirit, faithfully maintaining that the authors are who she says they are. Remember, Christ came to establish His Church, not His book. So it is the Church that He established that is the "pillar and foundation of truth." (I Tim 3:15)

Peace

Peter

 

[AudioArtist]

I am studying the history of the Catholic Church at my school; and to be honest, it seems like a very corrupt history. I mean no offense to my Catholic brothers and sisters; I believe they are fully saved and have a true faith and that the Catholic Church today is one of goodness and truth-however, I cannot deny that its past is shocking.

Also, I have seen the gifts of the Holy Spirit manifest themselves in a real way, and have had personal encounters with the Holy Spirit-these experiences keep me to my faith (as well as the Holy Spirit holding me, as it is within me.) Yet, I'd love to hear more concrete evidence for the authenticity of the gospels to secure the intellectual side to my mind.

Thanks for your concern.

 

[Kripost]

Regarding the studying of history, may I know in which period, and from whose viewpoint is it from? From what I have read, most history books tend to focus too much on Western Christianity, an d ignore the East.

 

[Peter]

Thank you Kripost. AudioArtist, I am not Catholic, I am Eastern Orthodox. In your study of Church history, make sure to do some reading regarding the great schism of 1054. For a very good reference on Church history, I refer you to Bishop Ware's book, "The Orthodox Chuch." THis is the Church I am refering to when I say "the Church."

As to your "intellectual side," I can relate. However, Christianity is NOT scientific. It is foolishness to those who do not believe. What other belief system asks you to have the faith of a little child? Those who ask you to have an understanding, like a scholar, miss the point of faith.

However, if you are looking for proof, look at the beliefs and practices of those Christians you know best. Are they they same as they were 10,20,50 or 100 years ago? Compare those findings to those of the Orthodox faith. We still use first-third century writers as our greatest allies against heresy.

But the matter comes down to faith. For me, I had to answer what I believed about Christ and His church in order to answer all other questions.

Peace.

Peter

 

[BearJim]

Muffler Dragon, I have to disagree. Marcion didn't have the Gospel of Luke only, he refused to acknowledge the other three because they didn't fit in with his gnostic doctines- and he still had to do some trimming of Luke's gospel!
As for Papias, he is believed to have known, and been taught by the Apostle John. He lived in the generation just after the apostles and the information he has would seem to be pretty accurate.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is possible that the Gospels were written by those disciples of those who've been attributed to authorship.

In plainer English: St. Matthew tells his story, which is passed down carefully orally to those he converts. One day, a unknown author writes it down, and in recognition to its source, attributes it to St. Matthew. This is in reality heresay, but it is nonetheless a possibility that makes more probable sense than St. Matthew writing it down himself.

In addition, Q was before Mark by about a decade, if not a little less. It was written in the 50's CE while Mark was written no earlier than 67 CE (and more likely 70-72). Matthew was written in the early 80's based off Mark, Q, and an oral source usually called "M" and Luke is based off both Mark, Q, and another oral tradition usually called "L." It was written in the later 80's, perhaps early 90's. John was last and isn't one of the synoptic Gospels. It was written sometime after 90, possibly even in the first years of the 2nd century CE.

 

[PaladinValer]

Muffler Dragon, I have to disagree. Marcion didn't have the Gospel of Luke only, he refused to acknowledge the other three because they didn't fit in with his gnostic doctines- and he still had to do some trimming of Luke's gospel!

Marcion wasn't Gnostic but a Judaizer, also known as a Circumcisionist.

As for Papias, he is believed to have known, and been taught by the Apostle John. He lived in the generation just after the apostles and the information he has would seem to be pretty accurate.

Highly doubtful if you critically look at the texts linguistically.

 

[BearJim]

Paladin, I have to respectfully disagree. Marcion was indeed a gnostic, if an atypical one. He belived in two gods- one the god of the Jews who had created this world and the other, the god and Father of Jesus. He rejected the physical birth of Jesus, stating that His first appearance was in the synagouge in Capernaum as a full grown man. He rejected the whole of the Old Teastamant and all of the New except Luke and Paul's letters (except the Pastorals). This information I took from The Early Church by Henry Chadwick and Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity.
Also, while it is possible that the gospels were written by the disciples of the apostles, isn't it just as possible that they were written by the apostles themselves? I would ask why does it make more sense to believe that someone else wrote the gospel than having Matthew author the gospel himself? I often wonder why "Q", "L" and "M" are thrown into the mix and used to late date the gospels. It takes less faith (and makes more sense to me) to believe that the authors of the gospels are the traditional authors themselves then to go through the twists and turns of possible sources for the gospels.

 

[Radagast]

I would have to agree. I have read that the names of the "Gospels" is not even mentioned until the middle of the second century. The first "New Testament" was by Marcion in 150 CE and he only had Luke.

That isn't true, actually, as all the books written against Marcion at the time point out.

-- Radagast

 

[PaladinValer]

You are correct; he wasn't a Judaizer (I got him mixed up accidentally with someone else). However, I was correct when I said he wasn't Gnostic, though much of his theology was the same, there were some major differences.

If anything, he was a "Gentilizer"

 

[raphink]

Paladin, what you tell is actually what I also have read.
That Mark was the first one of the synoptic Gospels to be written, around 75, and that the 2 others were based on both Mark and the Q-source.

Now there is something that I find interesting too. It is that the Gospels were not written before there was a need for it. In the very beginning, it is said that there were some 3000 Christians around Jerusalem, who had been following Christ and listening to him, and could remember what he had said. There was thus no need of a written testimony, as anyone could remember quite well what he had said. It seems these very early Christians used to go to the Synagogue, and they would read the Scriptures (i.e. the OT for us) and comment them in regards to what Jesus had taught them. The need for written texts came first from distant communities, that had no oral tradition of what Jesus had said. They wanted to have testimonies of the teaching of Christ, so as to base their theology on something reliable (even more as most of them didn't even have the OT, being not Jews). This explains that there was no text written before the middle of the first century, that is a few decades after the Passion of the Christ.

Also this is very true that in the first and second century, writers were used to putting their spiritual master's name as being the author of what they wrote. As it is, we are not even sure that the Epistle of Peter was written by the apostle Peter (all the more that Peter being a jewish fisherman he certainly didn't know how to write in greek).

The very numerous gospels, acts and probably epistles too were very likely composed by the communities founded by the claimed authors of the text, rather by these people themselves.