Regarding gospel authorship

[Zzyzx]

.
From the Catholic Education Resource Center

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints [they are named for] is hard to say.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cu ... rship.html

Catholic theologians and scholars cannot say if the ‘saints’ named in the gospels actually wrote / authored them, WHO is empowered to dispute their conclusions?

Didn’t the RCC produce the Bible?

How did upstart / splinter group religions (Protestantism) become authorities on what was produced centuries ago by the RCC?

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]


The RCC did not produce the bible. They merely compiled the new testament (a small portion of the bible) from some of the previously existing documents and letters.



How does that make them an authority on the content and authorship OF those documents and letters?

[Zzyzx]

.

The RCC did not produce the bible.

Interesting perspective / opinion. Do Christian theologians and scholars maintain that position, or is it just a deviant personal position?

They merely compiled the new testament (a small portion of the bible)

The New Testament makes up about 25% of the total. The Jewish Bible (Old Testament) is 75%. Shall we give credit to Judaism rather than Christianity?

from some of the previously existing documents and letters.

Did the Roman Catholic Church SELECT / decide which documents and letters to include in the Bible?

How does that make them an authority on the content and authorship OF those documents and letters?

In spite of your opinion, the RCC did produce, and is responsible existence of the Bible. It is an anthology (collection of works by various authors). The RCC chose works to include and was its caretaker for a thousand years.

Upstart / splinter group religions (Protestantism) pretend to better understand the Bible than the RCC. How presumptuous.

What gives them (or anyone else) superior knowledge or ability with regard to the Bible?

[tam]

Peace again to you!

.

The RCC did not produce the bible.

Interesting perspective / opinion. Do Christian theologians and scholars maintain that position, or is it just a deviant personal position?

Honestly, I thought that was just common sense. What evidence exists that the RCC produced the bible, rather than merely compiling books that went into the bible?

(unless compile is all you meant by produce)

They merely compiled the new testament (a small portion of the bible)

The New Testament makes up about 25% of the total. The Jewish Bible (Old Testament) is 75%. Shall we give credit to Judaism rather than Christianity?

Israel maintained the scriptures: the Psalms, the Prophets, Moses (as well as the histories of the the people, Israel). The prophets from Israel wrote most of them (and although you may not accept the following: those writings were inspired, given and received in the spirit, as the Word of God came to them).


How could the RCC be given any credit for books written a thousand (or so) years before the RCC even existed? And if the RCC cannot be credited for giving us 75% of the content of the Bible, how can it be given credit for giving us "the bible" at all?

from some of the previously existing documents and letters.

Did the Roman Catholic Church SELECT / decide which documents and letters to include in the Bible?

As far as I understand, yes. But not until a couple/few centuries after the book were already written and being circulated.

How does that make them an authority on the content and authorship OF those documents and letters?

In spite of your opinion, the RCC did produce, and is responsible existence of the Bible. It is an anthology (collection of works by various authors). The RCC chose works to include and was its caretaker for a thousand years.

Okay, so by produce, you mean compile previously existing documents into one book.

A - I have no problem with that, but that does not mean that those books exist because of the RCC.

B - I don't understand how your response answers my question.

Upstart / splinter group religions (Protestantism) pretend to better understand the Bible than the RCC. How presumptuous.

Where is your evidence that the RCC is capable of understanding the bible better than protestants (or anyone else)? The RCC did not write the bible, or the books contained within it. The RCC - as stated - simply collected and compiled previously existing letters and documents into one book.

What gives them (or anyone else) superior knowledge or ability with regard to the Bible?

You are claiming that one group has superior knowledge than the other; I am making no such claim.

But if you want to know what gives anyone understanding of what is written, well, the answer is not actually a what... but rather a whom.


Christ is the One who opens the scriptures (as even those scriptures attest), and He also knows who wrote what text. (And of course, some authors of the letters are named in the text.)

But even if you do not accept that Christ can open the scriptures (or speak and teach His sheep)... how then does the RCC have superior knowledge or ability over anyone else?


Her example alone - of corruption as well as the atrocities that she has committed (in conflict with the example and commands from Christ) - does not inspire much confidence from me in her understanding of what is written, or her understanding of Christ, or her understanding of God.



Peace again to you!

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

The questions asked in the OP, Z, are not new, and certainly not provocative.

Anyone who has studied history will see this. The real puzzle is why those who obviously haven't studied historical method continue to debate in historical questions!!

[Zzyzx]

.

The questions asked in the OP, Z, are not new, and certainly not provocative.

The Forum does NOT require that questions be new or provocative.

Feel free to actually address the OP question – How did upstart / splinter group religions (Protestantism) become authorities on what was produced centuries ago by the RCC?

Anyone who has studied history will see this.

Perhaps someone of vast historical knowledge can address the OP question: How did upstart / splinter group religions (Protestantism) become authorities on what was produced centuries ago by the RCC?

The real puzzle is why those who obviously haven't studied historical method continue to debate in historical questions!!

An astute reader of these threads might observe that ‘historians’ often attempt to defend ancient tales that are in conflict with what is known of the real world by those who actually study the natural sciences. However, they depart from ‘historical methods’ when evoking supernatural ‘explanations’ for reported events.

Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the scientific method and scientific information – or suppose that invisible, undetectable, hypothetical supernatural entities overrule nature?

[bjs]

The opening post pulls a quote from Rev. William Saunders out of context.

Mr. Saunders took the common position that we cannot be completely certain who wrote the Gospels, and it doesn’t really matter that much. However, the historical evidence strongly suggests that the four gospels were written by the saints whose names they bear.

As with all history, we should take the conclusion most strongly supported by the evidence and work from there, while still mentally allowing for the possibility that we are incorrect in understanding.

[Zzyzx]

.

The opening post pulls a quote from Rev. William Saunders out of context.

Feel free to put the quote in ‘proper’ context

Mr. Saunders took the common position that we cannot be completely certain who wrote the Gospels, and it doesn’t really matter that much.

Mr. Saunders position is that ‘scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit’

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. (No. 11)

So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

That does not affirm authorship -- only makes an unverified claim of supernatural incluence.

However, the historical evidence strongly suggests that the four gospels were written by the saints whose names they bear.

Kindly support that claim.

[bjs]

The opening post pulls a quote from Rev. William Saunders out of context.

Feel free to put the quote in ‘proper’ context

However, the historical evidence strongly suggests that the four gospels were written by the saints whose names they bear.

Kindly support that claim.

Okay. For both requests:

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints [they are named for] is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with the 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 Origen (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 (Col 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 [has long been assumed to have been] 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.

[Zzyzx]

.
Note the parts now emphasized in bold font or underlined.

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints [they are named for] is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with the 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 Origen (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 (Col 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 [has long been assumed to have been] 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.

Iraneus was born a century after the supposed crucifixion (130 CE) and his ‘teacher’ Polycarp was born 40 years after the supposed crucifixion (69 CE). Papias was born in 60 CE. How did any of them have personal knowledge of what happened or who wrote what before they were born or when they were children?

At best, they had hearsay (that heard from others).

Note mention of the gospels being written at indeterminate dates between 60 and 90 CE – thirty to sixty years after the supposed events and conversations they present. How well do people tend to remember word-for-word sermons from 30 to 60 years ago?

“Church tradition� means ‘what the church teaches.’ Thus, tradition cannot rationally be regarded as verification for what the church teaches . . .

Seems rather tenuous to me -- 'Just believe what the church teaches'