If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

In the first century books were written on skins, papyrus (made from the papyrus plant in Egypt, and relatively expensive) or parchment (specially prepared animal skin, and therefore very expensive - see 2 Timothy 4.13). Thus writing a book for permanent use required a great deal of care. While bits of skin could be used for making notes, the writer had to be very clear in his mind before he committed his final words to writing.

So we can be sure that the Gospel writers spent a considerable period of time, probably years, in gathering together their materials and putting them together in their minds, before completing the final article.

Often writers in those days would use an amanuensis to do the actual writing for them (as Paul clearly does, see below), telling them what to write but often allowing them some latitude in the phraseology. They would then check that they approved of what was written. We can compare this to some extent with how a good personal secretary might be used today.

Once these writings were completed they would be of great interest to the churches, and we need to recognise that at least the first churches which received them would have known for sure who had written them, otherwise they would not have been accepted. Such ‘books’ would necessarily be stored where they could be accessible, and in those days (when the title could not be written on the front cover of the book) on this being done they had to be identified in some way in order to prevent the necessity of going through a number of manuscripts to find the one that was wanted. We know from other evidence that this was accomplished by attaching to each manuscript a tag indicating its content or author. Thus from the beginning there would be a written record in some churches of who had written a particular work.

That in fact is probably where the heading ‘kata matthaion’ (according to Matthew) on Matthew’s Gospel, and that on the other Gospels (‘kata markon, kata loukan, and kata Joannen’) came from. This being so the titles of the Gospels are first hand and early evidence of who wrote the Gospels. Such important documents would not have remained unidentified, or have gained wide acceptance if they were. The early church were actually very concerned about authenticity.

But what do we know about the writers of the Gospels?

John Mark.

On the assumption, as all the evidence suggests, that the writer of Mark’s Gospel was John Mark, we know that he lived in Jerusalem, with a fairly wealthy mother (Acts 12.12 suggests), who was related to Barnabas the Apostle (Colossians 4.10). His house was a meeting place in the earliest days of the Apostles and the early church (12.12), and he would therefore have known personally all the Apostles, and kept company with them for some considerable time.

He was well enough thought of to go to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12.25) and also accompanied them to Cyprus (Acts 13.5), but later left them (in Paul’s eyes ‘deserted’) and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13.13).

Paul later refused to countenance him as a travelling companion on the grounds of unreliability, and this caused a separation between Paul and Barnabas, which resulted in Barnabas taking his nephew Mark to Cyprus with him, while Paul chose Silas and travelled through Syria and Cilicia, ‘strengthening the churches’(Acts 15.36-41).

It is clear there was later a change of heart, for Mark ministers to Paul in prison and Paul commends him to the churches (Colossians 4.10). Mark was also acquainted with Luke (Philemon 24), as a fellow-labourer, in either Rome or Ephesus.

He is later a co-worker of Timothy, when Paul desires his presence in Rome (2 Timothy 4.11).

At some stage he clearly has a close association with Peter, for Peter calls him “my son”, suggesting a period when they enjoyed a close working relationship (1 Peter 5.13), confirmed by the fact that later tradition strongly links him with Peter in Peter’s ministry (see below).

Summary

He had thus in his earlier days eagerly listened to the talk and teaching of the Apostles day by day, had cooperated closely with, and no doubt talked closely with, Barnabas, his uncle, who had almost certainly been a disciple of Jesus (he is classed as an Apostle), and had listened to what Barnabas had to say about Jesus both in private and on his preaching tours, had spent considerable time with Paul, and with Luke (who was by now no doubt collecting material for his proposed Gospel, probably with Paul’s encouragement), and at some stage accompanied Peter on his preaching tours. He was clearly well versed in the life and teaching of Jesus as told by eyewitnesses.

The Testimony of Papias (late 1st century/early 2nd century AD).

We are told by later writers that there was a man named Papias, who knew the aged Apostle John, and was acquainted with men who had known the other Apostles. Thus he lived towards the end of the 1st century AD and in the early second century AD. He wrote a series of books in which he said, “If anyone who had attended on the elders (the Apostles) came, I asked minutely after their sayings, -- what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip (he knew Philip’s daughters) or by Thomas, or by James or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice”. (Eusebius, from whom we learn this, had a copy of Papias’ books in front of him).

These words are interesting in that they show that the Apostles were known as ‘the Elders’ by their followers, (compare John ‘the Elder’, 2 John 1.1; 3 John 1.1), that he knew of books which had been written about Jesus and His teachings (compare Luke 1.1), but liked to hear things ‘first hand’, and placed great store on what was passed on by word of mouth as long as he was sure it had been received first hand and expressed the very words of the Apostles. He clearly had the kind of mind which wanted to distinguish the truth from hearsay.

What Papias Wrote About Mark.

Papias wrote about ‘Mark who wrote the Gospel’, saying, “And the elder (he always refers to John as the elder) said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord not accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to he necessities of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements”.

What Can We Learn From This?

This interesting snippet, based, we can be sure, on what he had learned from those who knew Peter and the other Apostles, explains why Mark’s Gospel is brief on some things while often also being the most detailed about incidents he does relate. Through constant listening to Peter, as he related incidents in the life of Jesus, he knew the life of Jesus, as revealed by Peter, intimately.

This very fact shows that Peter restricted himself to the same incidents time and again. He did not seek to expand his repertoire. He was not a ‘story-teller’, he was a witness, and like Jesus sought to teach repetitively so that others would remember. Thus the form of the accounts was set at a very early stage, long before Mark set it down in writing. The very fact that Mark was concerned to avoid the fictitious suggests that this was Peter’s emphasis also, and would certainly have meant that if Peter kept changing the stories Mark would have taken it up with him. We have thus good reason to accept the reliability of Mark’s record, and the soundness of Peter’s maintenance of the tradition.

What Papias Says About Matthew.

With regard to Matthew, Papias made the following statement, “Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew dialektos (language, way of writing), and each one interpreted them as best he could”.

Be that as it may this shows clearly that he had learned from those who knew Matthew personally that Matthew himself had written down in the native tongue or idiom, writings which included at least ‘the sayings of Jesus’, although in fact ‘oracles’ (logia) can mean more than just ‘sayings’, and could include the life of Jesus seen as a revelation. (Papias calls his own writings ‘oracles’ and these include more than just teaching). Certainly at least by the middle of the second century Matthew was seen as the writer of the Gospel of Matthew in Greek as we now have it.

If the palaeographic evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was in writing by 60 AD proves accurate there is really even less reason to throw any doubt on the tradition, although he may well have made use of a Christian amanuensis, a writing specialist, to help him combine his own writing in Hebrew (Aramaic?) with material in Mark’s Gospel. We know that Paul used amanuenses consistently (see Romans 16.22; 1 Corinthians 16.21 where Paul signs the letter written on his behalf and gives personal greeting ‘in his own hand’, Colossians 4.18; 2 Thessalonians 3.17 where he declares that writing the salutation with his own hand is a means by which the genuineness of his letters is evidenced).

Matthew.

We know that Matthew had been a tax collector (Matthew 9.9 and parallels) and responded to the call of Jesus, introducing Jesus to his friends (Matthew 9.10-13). In Matthew 10.3 he is named as an Apostle as ‘Matthew the tax collector’. Mark 3.18 and Luke 6.15 both name him among the Apostles. (In the parallels to the calling of a tax collector he is called Levi, the son of Alphaeus. But it was quite usual for men to have two names then, one being Jewish and the other Greek, or one being the given name and the other a name which indicated some important change in his life. Remember how Simon is given the name of Peter. It is possible, even probable, that Levi was his born name and that Matthew was his new ‘Christian’ name).

He was thus of those who went out preaching and healing in the name of Jesus, was a constant follower of Jesus, listening to His words, and participated in the final events leading up to the death of Jesus and commencement of the early church.

Apart from this we know little else about him except under the heading “the apostles” or “the eleven” or “the twelve”. But we are told a good deal about their activities in Acts 1-12. He is named, along with the other ten, in Acts 1.13. But his experience as a customs officer would have given him the sort of background useful for sorting out and presenting facts, and would naturally have been looked to in order to record the life of Jesus. Indeed Jesus may well have chosen him because he was used to taking down notes.

Luke.

Luke wrote a two part account which we know as Luke’s Gospel and the Acts, and there is no reason to doubt his authorship. He was not an especially prominent figure in the early church and there is absolutely no reason why authorship would be imputed to him unless it were true. He went about the matter of writing his history methodically, with the specific purpose of recording the testimony of eyewitnesses (Luke 1.2) and claims that he was in a special position to do so having had a complete understanding ‘of all things from the very first’ (Luke 1.3). He clearly knew the Apostles, and James, the Lord’s brother (Acts 21.18).

He also knew of writings by ‘many’ (Luke 1.1), of which we now have no information (so-called Gospels we have the text of are 2nd century and cannot be compared with the four Gospels, as a cursory reading demonstrates. They were usually written from the biased viewpoint of a sect), and was concerned that the true facts should be recorded. We know that he made use of Mark’s Gospel. He was clearly concerned that what he would present should be an accurate account.

It is apparent from his writings that he was widely knowledgeable about the background and history of his times and that he was a literary expert. He was able to use ‘classical Greek’, ‘koine (popular) Greek’ and ‘Septuagint Greek’ with equal facility, and does it in such a way as to add flavour to the narratives.

By profession he was a physician (Colossians 4.14) and went around extensively with Paul. (Note the ‘we’ sections in Acts 16.10-17; 20.5; 21.18; 27.1 to 28.16). In Philemon 24 he is a ‘fellow-labourer’ of Paul and Mark, and was faithful to Paul at the last (2 Timothy 4.11). We know nothing definite about him after Paul’s death, but 2nd century tradition tells us that he lived into his eighties and died in Greece.

John.

Like Luke’s Gospel the Gospel of John states who ‘the writer’ is. He is ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ who leaned on His breast (i.e. lay next to Him) at the Last Supper (John 21.24 with verse 20). This demonstrates that it must have been an Apostle, and all the evidence in the Gospel points to John, who is never directly mentioned (which would be very strange if he was not the writer of the Gospel), while ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ regularly is mentioned in places where it is clear that the person spoken of is one of the inner band. Compare also how John the baptiser is called simply ‘John’ because there was no need to distinguish him from the Apostle, when the Apostle was the author.

The care that the early church took in ensuring that such works be ‘true’ is evidenced by the confirmation, ‘we know that his testimony is true’ (compare Papias’ testimony above).

This authorship is confirmed by the constant testimony of the early church, which is that John gave out the Gospel at Ephesus ‘in his old age’.

The fact that it was written in old age suggests that there is every probability that he used an amanuensis, (writing was a far more arduous task in those days than it is today), and this is confirmed by certain touches in the Gospel which John might not have put in himself, but might well have allowed at the hands of a trusted amanuensis, including the phrase ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’.

This would explain why the writer could refer in John 21.24 to ‘the writer’ as another person than himself. It would also explain why the external testimony is that John is the authority behind what is written without actually saying he ‘wrote’ it. Thus Irenaeus in c.177 AD says John ‘issued, gave out’ the book (exedoke), and Irenaeus wrote as one who had personally known Polycarp, who had known John. The Muratorian fragment (c.170 AD) also gives the impression that John gave out what he wished to be said, so that it had his authority, and that others then certified that what was written conformed with what he had actually said.

On the other hand some would argue that to use the phrase ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ was a way by which the writer could avoid using his own name in the third person, and was a statement of quiet wonder that he should be loved by Jesus, rather than a suggestion that he was specially loved. They therefore say John directly wrote the Gospel. They must then make 21.24 an addition by others, but this would raise the difficulty as to why the others did not identify themselves specifically, while if v.24 is by an amanuensis he would naturally not identify himself as he ‘wrote’ the book under the guidance of the writer, and being only an amanuensis would naturally include his fellow testifiers with himself.

Either way the authority behind what is said is John’s and it has his direct approval.

His credentials can be found by reading the four Gospels. He was with Jesus from the very first, was a member of the inner three of Peter, James and John, was present at all the most intimate events, and was with Jesus to the end.

The Date of the Gospels.

The first question we need to ask in this regard is as to which Gospel was written first. The almost universally accepted position is that it was Mark. The only real challenge to this comes from Roman Catholic scholars because of the traditions of their church which make Matthew the first Gospel. However, their arguments are not convincing when compared with the evidence against them.

How Do We Know Mark Was The First Gospel?

A comparison of Mark with Matthew and Luke reveals a good deal of common material, often with word for word agreement. In some of these cases Mark tends to give us a fuller narrative. This would mean that Matthew and Luke have deliberately shortened the accounts because of the amount of extra material they had. This would often occur with ancient writings because there was a limit to the size of scrolls. (Plagiarism was not a problem in the ancient world like it would be today).

Furthermore Matthew and Luke appear to have shortened the accounts in different ways, and comparison between the three makes it most reasonable to accept that they both shortened the longer version, rather than that Mark expanded Matthew’s shorter version while Luke just changed it. We can understand why the narrative was changed if it had to be shortened, but why otherwise? It should also be noted that consideration of Luke’s account suggests that he was not aware of much of Matthew’s material, and that his borrowing is nearly always from Mark.

Even more significant is the fact that Mark’s Gospel is written in koine (local Mediterranean) Greek, while that of the other two writers is more classical. It appears more likely that the other two writers would iron out the ‘popular’ Greek of Mark, rather than that it should happen the other way round, especially as they iron it out in different ways. It is not as though Mark was just writing for a specific community. Certainly if the suggestion that he records the teaching of Peter is accepted, and there appear good grounds why it should be, this would further emphasise the primacy of Mark.

It is on these grounds that Mark is mainly accepted as the first Gospel.

The Date of Luke and Mark.

Luke/Acts are clearly two volumes of one work (see the introductions Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1). The work would have taken a number of years to compile, not only because it had to be written in the course of a busy life, but also because of the necessity of gathering the material needed.

The first part gives us a full account of the life of Jesus, while the second demonstrates the outward movement of the good news from Jerusalem, throughout Judea, Samaria, Antioch, Greece and finally Rome, a ‘fulfilment’ of Luke 24.47 and Acts 1.8.

Acts ends with Paul living in a hired house in Rome proclaiming the Gospel ‘without hindrance’ (Acts 28.30-31).

The first significant feature is that Paul is portrayed as still being alive, and as we know that he was martyred in 64 AD this suggests forcefully that it was before this that Luke completed his work. It seems inconceivable that if Paul had been martyred Luke would not have mentioned the fact. And if this be so it puts the date of Mark’s Gospel quite some time before this, as Luke would have needed to survey at least the drafts of that completed work in the writing of his own.

The main other argument put forward as to why Luke might have omitted the martyrdom of Paul is that his account would be read in the Roman world, and Luke therefore wished to prevent the reader from knowing that Paul was a criminal condemned by Roman justice, or sought to prevent the necessary stigma or danger for Christians that the publication of such information might bring.

However, if this was Luke’s intention it is difficult to see why he put a limit of two years on Paul’s presence in his own hired house. This would necessarily raise questions as to what happened afterwards. Leaving out the ‘two whole years’ would have easily circumvented this problem, a fact which could hardly have escaped Luke’s notice. This makes the argument very weak indeed.

A further argument is that Luke wished to end on a note of ringing success. The Gospel is triumphant in Rome! But while it is always difficult to lay down rules for how an author should have finished his work, it appears inconceivable that Luke, a dear friend of Paul’s, would not have mentioned his triumphant death as even greater proof of triumph, especially in view of the esteem that was felt for martyrs in the early church right from the beginning.

It really does seem to me that we have no credible alternative to the suggestion that Luke finished his work in the early 60’s AD.

It is true that this then requires Mark’s ministry alongside Peter to be during Paul’s lifetime, but there is really no reason why this should not have been so. He had many years of ministry about which we know nothing, and Paul did not have a monopoly on his time, even if we overlook the period when he was ‘in disgrace’ as far as Paul was concerned..

The Date of Matthew.

Until recently we have had no real grounds on which to establish the date of Matthew apart from the fact that external evidence would place it in the 1st century AD (it is utilised as authoritative by the didache (late 1st century AD?) and Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD), and probably by Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD). However, a recent palaeographical discovery may suggest that we can now date the Gospel no later than that of Luke, i.e. in the early sixties AD. This would then mean that all three ‘synoptic’ (seen together) Gospels were finally completed within thirty years or less of the death of Jesus.

The Date of John.

We have definite documentary evidence from a papyrus fragment found in Egypt (the Rylands fragment) that John’s Gospel existed in Egypt before 140 AD, and it is also utilised a number of times in the Egerton Papyrus 2 (125-140 AD), as well as being quoted by Ignatius of Antioch (martyred 110 AD). Taking into account that the Gospel had to have been copied a number of times and then had to have gained sufficient reputation to be used in Egypt, this ties in with the strong tradition, which few would doubt, that it was written towards the end of John’s long life in Ephesus at the end of the first century, which is the testimony of all the early Christian writers.

Conclusion.

Thus we know that the Gospels that we have were all written utilising information obtained directly from the Apostles and with Apostolic backing, and that three of the four Gospels were written within 15 to 30 years of the death of Jesus, using information that had been gathered over a number of years, and were thus relatively ‘hot off the press’, and written while many eyewitnesses were still alive.

Return to Home Page

Please click back button to return to Home Page

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Gospel,writers,existence,of,God,Eternal,security,saved,lost,
Messiah,Christ,faith,facts,repent,forgive,forgiveness,
love,Holy,Spirit,Creation,use,of,numbers,old,new,testament