Board index ‹ Bible

[Anomalous Tidbits]

Many modern scholars claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the authors of the Gospels. They are all anonymous works, and were probably written long after the life of Jesus. To me it detracts from the reliability of the texts we have. They just can't be believable. What evidence do you have that the Gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and that they were written in the first century?

[jimwalton]

Glad to comment. I'll give you my own research, though I'm not sure I can fit all four in one post. Heads up ahead of time: I'll keep it in outline form, but it could be long. There is much to talk about here.

MATTHEW:

Arguments for Matthew as author:
1. The author was a conservative-minded Jew, aware of but not inclined to sectarian views. This fits the description of a Levite (Matthew is also known as Levi).
2. The gospel preserves material that details Messianic titles already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would show the author is familiar with the OT and its Messianic prophecies, and that the document was likely written early.
3. The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. This would fit with Matthew being a Levite and a tax collector.
4. The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from a Levite.
5. We do not find Matthew, despite what some say, engaging in an attempt to represent Jesus as a “new Moses.” To the contrary, we find that the author’s interest lies in carefully preserving sayings of Jesus that re-establish the true principles of the Mosaic Law.
6. The book's collection of parables reflects a consuming interest in the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people. The ministry of Jesus required him to re-examine the theological implications of God's choice of his ancient people.
7. Mark is not a necessary source, neither was it necessarily written first. Some scholars are now re-evaluating the "Q" theory, and the Marcan primacy theory. Matthew could have been written much earlier than formerly supposed.
8. The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
9. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Hermas—all first century writers—quote from the Gospel of Matthew; Hermas mentions that there are 4 gospels. These all indicate an early writing and circulation.
10. The superscription "According to Matthew" was part of the first edition that we still have (p4 fragment of a flyleaf, mid-2nd c. AD) and is found on all known manuscripts of the gospel starting at around AD 130. Papias, in about 125, attributes it to Matthew. It is also attributed to Matthew in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (4th c.). We have no documents that attribute the gospel to any other writer.
11. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing the gospel to Matthew.

Arguments against Matthew as author:
1. Tradition says Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, but our Greek text doesn't seem to be a translation of an Aramaic original.
2. Matthew doesn't write like an eyewitness. There are very few eyewitness factors in his gospel.
3. Matthew would not have needed to copy from Mark and Q if he were an eyewitness.

MARK:

Arguments for Mark as author:
1. Papias, in about AD 125, attributes it to Mark. Clement of Alexandria also attributes it to Mark, and claims that the gospel was written while Peter was still alive (Peter is thought to have been martyred in about AD 64).
2. The author preserved Aramaic expressions, and indication of early writing and by someone who knew Aramaic. (Disclaimer: just about everyone knew Aramaic.) The number of Aramaic words and phrases are evidence that the author was a Jerusalemite.
3. The book is written in an atmosphere where the theological understanding of the ministry and message of Jesus are still in their primitive and elemental forms. This would give evidence of very early writing and of someone familiar with the actual events and words of Jesus.
4. The author's Jewishness can e inferred from his frequent use of biblical quotations and allusions.
5. The gospel has similarities to Paul's themes. Mark was a traveling companion of Paul's.
6. We have no documentary evidence attributing it to any author other than Mark.
7. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing the gospel to Mark.
8. Some Marcan material seems to stem from the controversy over the status of Gentiles, clearly a concern in Paul's writings in the 50s, and a completely dead issue after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Mark was a traveling companion of Paul's, a close friend of Peter's. This theme would give evidence that Mark was written early, and Mark could easily have been the writer.
9. It doesn't make sense that anyone would adopt Mark's name as a pseudonym.
10. The quality of the Greek is not terribly high, consistent with Palestinian Jews.

Arguments against Mark's authorship:
1. The Gospel seems to have a Gentile orientation. This could speak against a Jewish author, or confirm that the author was well-travelled in Gentile circles, so it's not a strong argument against Mark.
2. The alleged mistakes and/or unconcern about Jewish laws and customs. (There are about 3.)
3. The supposed mistakes about Palestinian geography.

LUKE:

Arguments for Luke as author:
1. The uniform testimony of the early church is that Luke was the author.
2. There are numerous technical medical terms in the gospel, consistent with Dr. Luke (Col. 4.14) as the author.
3. The Greek in Luke has a high quality consistent with a Gentile author.
4. His knowledge of Palestinian geography and customs betrays that he is not a Palestinian.
5. He claims not to have been an eyewitness, but to have gotten his information from others, which is consistent with Luke.
6. The author was well educated.
7. The author was acquainted with both Old Testament literary traditions and Hellenistic literary techniques.
8. The title “According to Luke” is on the oldest extant manuscripts.
9. Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero’s persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), or Peter (65). If Acts was written in the early 60s, Luke’s gospel would have been prior to that.
10. Many expressions in Acts are very early and primitive. That puts Luke early.
11. Acts deals with issues that were especially important prior to Jerusalem’s fall (70). Luke was likely written in the late 50s.
12. More than half the material (59%) found in the gospel of Luke is not in any of the other three gospels. Which gospel came first, and the source of the material, is still a matter of debate.
13. Luke/Acts should be dated prior to the formation or circulation of the Pauline corpus. There is no internal evidence that Luke was acquainted with Paul's letters, much less with his corpus as such.

Arguments against Luke as author: I couldn't find any.

JOHN:

Arguments for John's authorship:
1. The statement in Jn. 21.24 affirms John's authorship.
2. The character of the "beloved disciple" in the gospel fits the image of John that we know from history.
3. Son of Zebedee (21.2)
4. If it were written by someone else, they likely would have mentioned John's name to bolster the credibility of the work.
5. The writer knew Palestine and its culture very well.
6. The writer knew the topography of Palestine.
7. The writing style is that of a Jew of Palestinian culture.
8. Many many texts in John have the touch of an eyewitness.
9. The controversies written about are 1st-century controversies, not the kinds of questions discussed in the 2nd century.
10. The writer had good knowledge of the 12, their personalities, conversations and thoughts, the places the frequented, etc.
11. We have no documents attributing the gospel to any other author. The uniform testimony of the early church is that John was the author.

Arguments against John as author:
1. He hardly used any material in common with the other three gospels.
2. The writing style is radically different from the other three gospels.
3. The reference to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is not a natural way to speak of oneself.
4. Most of the action in the book takes place in Judea. If John were the author, we would expect more interest in Galilee.
5. There is no mention of the Transfiguration or of the agony in Gethsemane, in both of which John had special access.

My conclusions: As you can see, I think the evidence weighs very heavily in favor of the traditional authors of the gospels. Add to that that there is absolutely no hard evidence of any other direction. All of the evidence against traditional authorship is conjecture, and in my opinion far weaker than the evidence in favor.

Sorry this was so long, but hope it helps.