Who Wrote the Gospels?

[FaithT]

I was reading tonight and learned that many (most?) modern scholars say the Gospels were written anonymously, not by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And that they were written much later than the RCC says they were.
I looked this up on Catholic Answers but their articles didn’t help 100%. This is one of those things that can turn into a huge thing for me. So how do we know the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or disciples of eyewitnesses?

 

[Michie]

Did you read this?

Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not just code words for anonymous and unreliable authors. Most of us take for granted that the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, respectively. In times past, this would have been the...

www.christianforums.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

I was reading tonight and learned that many (most?) modern scholars say the Gospels were written anonymously, not by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And that they were written much later than the RCC says they were.
I looked this up on Catholic Answers but their articles didn’t help 100%. This is one of those things that can turn into a huge thing for me. So how do we know the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or disciples of eyewitnesses?

If we look at the gospel texts alone they are not signed documents. What we know, or guess, of authorship comes from other documentation or other opinions. It's probably correct, but is speculative in many cases.

The texts themselves provide clues of the closeness of events to texts. And we have a far better historical link between texts and events than almost any other event in ancient history. But still, it is not the real basis for accepting the texts.

The Church as a whole has attested to the adequacy of the Biblical texts. It is that collective memory of the events that has been remembered in the Church which judged that the gospels were adequate. THAT is the linker between texts and events, not the signatures the texts don't have. Or some other basis.

As to dates of authorship, some skeptical scholars want to date them all in the second century. But they have been fighting a losing battle, and now the case for very early dating is more acceptable.

 

[FaithT]

If we look at the gospel texts alone they are not signed documents. What we know, or guess, of authorship comes from other documentation or other opinions. It's probably correct, but is speculative in many cases.

The texts themselves provide clues of the closeness of events to texts. And we have a far better historical link between texts and events than almost any other event in ancient history. But still, it is not the real basis for accepting the texts.

The Church as a whole has attested to the adequacy of the Biblical texts. It is that collective memory of the events that has been remembered in the Church which judged that the gospels were adequate. THAT is the linker between texts and events, not the signatures the texts don't have. Or some other basis.

As to dates of authorship, some skeptical scholars want to date them all in the second century. But they have been fighting a losing battle, and now the case for very early dating is more acceptable.

So are you saying that the RCC trusts and teaches that they really were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John and that the dating of the Gospels is close enough to the actual events that we can trust them?

 

[Wolseley]

"Modern scholars" always do their best to try to tear down any kind of Biblical authority. I remember one review I read on Christ's resurrection, after Mary Magdalene had seen the risen Lord. The author's slant was, "Well, you know, yeah, sure, she said she saw Jesus; but after all, this is a woman who was so mentally unbalanced that supposedly 'seven demons' were driven out of her---how reliable a witness could she really possibly be?" All in that snide, superior tone with the accompanying smirk that we all know so well.

I don't pay too much attention to what the "experts" have to say with regards to a lot of this stuff. Some years ago somebody got me a subscription to the Biblical Archaeological Review, which is supposedly about Biblical archaeology, but for all practical purposes is nothing but a platform for the atheist Jews and apostate Christians who run the magazine to try to completely destroy any type of faith that one might have in the reliability of the Scriptures. I cancelled the subscription two months later. Who needs that kind of garbage?

 

[chevyontheriver]

So are you saying that the RCC trusts and teaches that they really were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John and that the dating of the Gospels is close enough to the actual events that we can trust them?

No. Instead that the texts comport with the living memory of the Church in being accurate to what happened. Not specifically who wrote what or even when they were written.

It is probable that Mark wrote Mark and all of that. It is likely that the texts were written fairly early from very early oral traditions as their basis. But it isn't dogma of the Catholic Church that Mark wrote Mark or that he did it in the first century. The authorship and date had something to do with acceptance in the canon but acceptance in the canon does not mean we know dates of authorship or who wrote what. Acceptance in the canon is more about judging the content of the texts as comporting to how the Church received the faith from the apostles and lived that faith. It's not the texts that matter so much as the faith the Church lived. But that Church gave us the texts that we can now bind ourselves to them. It was the Church we adhered to then as judge and jury over what was in the canon, what agreed with the rule of faith which was the teaching of the apostles handed down orally.

 

[FaithT]

No. Instead that the texts comport with the living memory of the Church in being accurate to what happened. Not specifically who wrote what or even when they were written.

It is probable that Mark wrote Mark and all of that. It is likely that the texts were written fairly early from very early oral traditions as their basis. But it isn't dogma of the Catholic Church that Mark wrote Mark or that he did it in the first century. The authorship and date had something to do with acceptance in the canon but acceptance in the canon does not mean we know dates of authorship or who wrote what. Acceptance in the canon is more about judging the content of the texts as comporting to how the Church received the faith from the apostles and lived that faith. It's not the texts that matter so much as the faith the Church lived. But that Church gave us the texts that we can now bind ourselves to them. It was the Church we adhered to then as judge and jury over what was in the canon, what agreed with the rule of faith which was the teaching of the apostles handed down orally.

But if we don’t know for sure who wrote what or when, then how can the Gospels be trusted?
BTW, does anyone here know if the LCMS believes that it was Matthew Mark Luke and John who wrote the Gospels and if so, if it was within the first century AD?

 

[chevyontheriver]

But if we don’t know for sure who wrote what or when, then how can the Gospels be trusted?

Because the Church trusted them to include them in the rule of faith.

BTW, does anyone here know if the LCMS believes that it was Matthew Mark Luke and John who wrote the Gospels and if so, if it was within the first century AD?

No idea. Point being if Philip wrote Mark it doesn't terribly matter. It is the acceptance of the Church no matter who wrote it that matters. The credibility of the text is not diminished by who we think wrote a text that never says who wrote it.

 

[FaithT]

Because the Church trusted them to include them in the rule of faith.

No idea. Point being if Philip wrote Mark it doesn't terribly matter. It is the acceptance of the Church no matter who wrote it that matters. The credibility of the text is not diminished by who we think wrote a text that never says who wrote it.

Ok, thanks.

 

[John G.]

From a logical standpoint: it is clear to me that Luke was inspired by Mark and Matthew. He used them as sources along with other unknown ones (possibly interviews of disciples, Mary, etc.).
Now, Luke's gospel is followed by the book of Acts - where he was a participant. This book ends in 62 AD with the first imprisonment of Paul.
Therefore: Acts was written by 62 AD. The gospel of Luke was written before that, the gospels of Matthew and Mark were written even before that.

 

[Diamond7]

So how do we know the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or disciples of eyewitnesses?

Because we know a lot about the people who wrote the Bible. Mark for example was very young. Jesus and the disciples stayed in the upper room and that was owned by Mark's mother. We know that Mark loved to sit at the feet of Jesus. He loved to learn but he did not travel with the disciples. Matthew traveled with Jesus, so it is absurd to say that Matthew copied Mark. This just shows how little the liberals know and understand the Bible. Paul was upset with Mark because he took Mark on a missionary journey and Mark wanted to go home early. Luke was able to work things out and get Paul to forgive Mark.

 

[John G.]

The gospel of Mark is the most plain, straightforward of the three synoptic gospels. Logic dictates it was the first.
Matthew is Mark plus other information and quotes specifically aimed to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. It logically was second unless one supposes that Mark purposely eliminated all the Jewish-directed verses which, of course, makes no sense.
Luke was written by an outsider, a companion oof Paul. It borrows from the first two and adds more from "investigation" - as the author puts it.
It was definitely the last of the three.
Btw, a curious story exists in Mark, but nowhere else, about a young man who fled Gethsemane naked. Many suppose that fellow was Mark himself.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

sorry... wrong forum..

 

[fide]

I was reading tonight and learned that many (most?) modern scholars say the Gospels were written anonymously, not by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And that they were written much later than the RCC says they were.
I looked this up on Catholic Answers but their articles didn’t help 100%. This is one of those things that can turn into a huge thing for me. So how do we know the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or disciples of eyewitnesses?

The Catechism speaks beautifully and truly on the matter:

CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “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 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.”

For several unholy and unworthy reasons, much "modern" scholarship is focused not on the divine and inerrant Author in seeking understanding of Holy Scripture, but on the human side of it all. And "modern scholars" - many if not most being tempted to seek "peer approval" for their academic and professional reputation, fall in line with one another. It is a tragedy that this passage in John"s Gospel in not more clearly heard by the scholars:

Jn 5:44 How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

The matters of God are supernatural, not natural; understanding them is a supernatural act enabled in human persons by supernatural grace and the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit - activities of the interior supernatural life of man. There, in the interior spiritual life - not in the trained natural rational (and often ambitious) mind - is the proper foundation of spiritual discernment, understanding and maturation that we need to seek. How we need saints among us, leading us, advising us, illuminating the Church for the good of the whole creation.

 

[FaithT]

The Catechism speaks beautifully and truly on the matter:


For several unholy and unworthy reasons, much "modern" scholarship is focused not on the divine and inerrant Author in seeking understanding of Holy Scripture, but on the human side of it all. And "modern scholars" - many if not most being tempted to seek "peer approval" for their academic and professional reputation, fall in line with one another. It is a tragedy that this passage in John"s Gospel in not more clearly heard by the scholars:

The matters of God are supernatural, not natural; understanding them is a supernatural act enabled in human persons by supernatural grace and the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit - activities of the interior supernatural life of man. There, in the interior spiritual life - not in the trained natural rational (and often ambitious) mind - is the proper foundation of spiritual discernment, understanding and maturation that we need to seek. How we need saints among us, leading us, advising us, illuminating the Church for the good of the whole creation.

I agree with the Catechism, I know that God chose man to write what He wanted written down. The issue is were these men Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or somebody else? And when were the Gospels written?

 

[fide]

I agree with the Catechism, I know that God chose man to write what He wanted written down. The issue is were these men Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or somebody else? And when were the Gospels written?

The premise under my post is that Scripture was written that we might believe, and believing, have life in His Name (Jn 20:30-31). Not that we might have knowledge about the words of the Word - but that the Word Himself might become known, love and followed by us. Jesus said to the Scripture scholars of His day:

Jn 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
Jn 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

I am not applying this to you personally - as you know, I do not know you. But I see among "scholars" of Scripture today placing themselves above the sacred text, as if it were a corpse, and they were doctors doing an autopsy on a dead body. But the Words of God are full of life! And He spoke them to teach us, to enable us to become HIs disciples, learners under Him. Not to become learners about Him or over Him, but learners under and of Him. As we read,

Isa 66:1 Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house which you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?
Isa 66:2 All these things my hand has made,
and so all these things are mine, says the LORD.
But this is the man to whom I will look,
he that is humble and contrite in spirit,
and trembles at my word.​

 

[FaithT]

The premise under my post is that Scripture was written that we might believe, and believing, have life in His Name (Jn 20:30-31). Not that we might have knowledge about the words of the Word - but that the Word Himself might become known, love and followed by us. Jesus said to the Scripture scholars of His day:

I am not applying this to you personally - as you know, I do not know you. But I see among "scholars" of Scripture today placing themselves above the sacred text, as if it were a corpse, and they were doctors doing an autopsy on a dead body. But the Words of God are full of life! And He spoke them to teach us, to enable us to become HIs disciples, learners under Him. Not to become learners about Him or over Him, but learners under and of Him. As we read,

I think I understand what you’re saying but I still want to know who wrote the Gospels and when.

 

[Solo81]

... who wrote the Gospels and when.

We don't know precisely. We have no original documents; only copies of copies of copies...etc.
The earliest Christian writings, where the original document exists, are those of the Church Fathers.

 

[FaithT]

We don't know precisely. We have no original documents; only copies of copies of copies...etc.
The earliest Christian writings, where the original document exists, are those of the Church Fathers.

When I was in a Catholic grade school were were taught that it was Matthew, Mark Luke and John. It’s only now that I’ve been reading differently.

 

[Michie]

Here is some points to ponder from Zondervan Academic both pro and con. I tend to lean toward the writers being one of the apostles. The bottom line though is that nobody is going to know for sure unless something is uncovered archaeologically that specifically points in that direction that says for certain. I trust the Church and tradition on this issue.

Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for Sure?

The closest we get to a claim of authorship is at the very end of the Book of John, where the author implies that the book was written by “the disciple…

zondervanacademic.com