Dear Professor: Were the Gospels written anonymously, as this course teaches, or by the evangelists, as the Church teaches? A respectful request for classroom discussion.
Dear Professor:
In this course, as in most Catholic colleges, universities and seminaries today, we are taught to disregard Church teaching that apostle-eyewitnesses Matthew and John, as well as Mark (Peter) and Luke (Paul) wrote the Gospels (Dei Verbum, 18). This course calls us to believe instead that the Gospels originated with four unknown second-generation writers who probably never saw or heard Jesus and, conceivably, could have “lovingly embellished” the Gospels, deifying a remarkable but merely human Jesus.
Specifically, we are taught that the historical-critical, anonymous-Gospels Markan Priority Two-Source Hypothesis (TSH) is the best explanation for the origin of the first three (Synoptic) Gospels. Father Raymond E. Brown, S.S., is given much credit for our further instruction that the Gospel according to John was also written anonymously later; not by the apostle John.
But surely you must be discouraged, Professor, as I am as your student, upon reading this assessment of what we are now taught by Pope Benedict XVI after forty (now fifty) years of dominance of the Markan Priority TSH in Catholic higher education:
“As historical-critical scholarship advanced . . . the figure of Jesus — became increasingly obscured and blurred . . . Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air.” (Jesus of Nazareth, xii, © 2007).
I was happy to learn that the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis (TGH) is now peer-recognized as a major hypothesis on a par with the Markan Priority TSH. Proponents of the Matthean Priority TGH point to serious flaws that make untenable the Markan Priority TSH favored in this course. Most importantly, when the compelling rationale for the pre-A.D. 70 writing of all four Gospels is taken into account, in particular, irrefutable evidence of Gospel authenticity by Irenaeus https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm and other Early Church Fathers, the Matthean Priority TGH points convincingly to what the Church has always taught — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the four canonical Gospels.
No longer blurred and reducing Jesus to “thin air,” these Gospels are highly credible accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus, our divine Lord and risen Redeemer.
The ultimate responsibility of this Catholic university is to prepare students to live in a way that we may one day hear these words of Christ: “Well done, good and faithful servant . . . enter into the joy of your master” (Mt 25:23). [The ultimate responsibility of this Catholic seminary is to prepare us to call those entrusted to us to live in a way that they may one day hear these words of Christ: “Well done, good and faithful servant . . . enter into the joy of your master” (Mt 25:23)].
A class discussion comparing these contradictory explanations of Gospel origin may well determine which view of the biblical Jesus we, your students, take to heart, live by and one day teach our children or, as seminarians, soon preach during our Masses.
With that in mind, Professor, may I respectfully request classroom discussion of not only the Markan Priority TSH, but of the Matthean Priority TGH?
I recommend that resources for the discussion include, “The key to restoring Catholic orthodoxy,” “The Poison Pill taken by Catholic colleges, universities and seminaries — and the antidote,” “Replacing ‘thin air’ Jesus with the true Jesus in Catholic universities,” “Defending the Gospels when even the USCCB doubts that the evangelists wrote them” and “Jesus emerges from the historical-critical fog,” posted at https://7stepcatholic.com. The “Jesus emerges . . .“ article was published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, Fall / Winter 2017.
Respectfully, your student,