April 1, 2004, Vol.4, No.7.
Two new articles every two weeks.
Bible Question? E-mail
us.
THIS ISSUE: "Genuineness
of the Gospel Accounts" (see
below)
and "Homosexuality According
to the Word of God"
Genuineness of the
Gospel Accounts
by Keith Sharp
 Virtually
everything we know or can know about Jesus of Nazareth is from
the four gospel accounts of the New Testament - Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, But skeptics attack these primary sources as unhistorical
and biased. They deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually
wrote the books which bear their names. Professor E.P. Sanders
concludes, "My judgment is that all the gospels were written
anonymously and that the names were assigned after the year 150...."
(66). It is true that the original manuscripts of the accounts
of the life of Jesus did not contain the authors, names. So how
do we know they were really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John rather than fabricated by later, anonymous writers?
Matthew
Matthew, also known as Levi, was one of the twelve apostles
who accompanied Jesus during His ministry (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark
3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16; Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32; Acts 1:21-26).
He was a Jewish tax collector and thus knowledgeable of Jewish
customs and well qualified to keep records. Other than his dishonorable
former occupation and the circumstances of his call, the New
Testament says nothing about Matthew individually. Papias, a
bishop in Hierapolis, and one who had heard the apostle John
preach, claimed Matthew wrote a record of the oracles of the
Lord first in the Hebrew language (Schaff. 1:622). Origen, who
also lived in the second century, likewise identifies Matthew
as the author of the book (Thiessen. 132).
Mark
John Mark was the son of Mary, who sheltered the disciples
in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Apparently he was led to Christ by
Peter (1 Peter 5:13). He went with Paul and Barnabas on Paul's
first preaching journey to the Gentiles to serve them (Acts 13:5)
but left them to return home (Acts 13:13). Because of this Paul
refused to take him on his second journey, and this caused Paul
and Barnabas to separate (Acts 15:36-40). Mark was Barnabas,
nephew (Colossians 4:10). Later Paul accepted Mark, and Mark
became a useful companion to the apostle (Philemon 23-24; 2 Timothy
4:11). Papias of Hierapolis, in the first half of the second
century, writes that "Mark, having become the interpreter
of Peter..., wrote down accurately... whatever he remembered."
(Schaff. 1:630) Also in the second century, Clement of Alexandria
designated Mark as the author of this record and that he wrote
down what Peter preached. There is a striking parallel between
the plan of the book of Mark and Peter's style of preaching about
Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 10:36-42).
Luke
The testimony to Luke is equally early and strong. Luke was
a physician and traveling companion of Paul (Colossians 4:14;
Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11). The books of Luke and Acts were
written by the same author (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-4) and are companion
volumes. By comparing the sections of Acts where the writer identifies
himself as one of Paul's companions by the use of the pronoun
"we" with the list of Paul's traveling companions and
when they could have been with him, the only logical choice for
the author of Acts, and thus the book of Luke as well, is the
physician Luke. The Muratorian Canon of the Scriptures, which
dates from about 170 AD, states:
The Gospel of St. Luke stands third in order, having been
written by St. Luke the physician, the companion of St. Paul,
who, not being himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on
such information as he could obtain, beginning from the birth
of John. (Spence. ii)
John
Curiously, the gospel account which is held in least esteem
by the skeptics, that of John, is the most firmly attested, both
internally and externally. Of course, not only was John an apostle
of Christ, but he was one of the inner three, along with Peter
and James, who were closest to their Master (cf. Matthew 17:1-2;
26:36-37). The author of the book claims to be an eyewitness
of Jesus (John 1:14; 19:35; 21:24). The references to the "disciple
whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23-25; 19:26-27; 20:1-8; 21:7)
are the author humbly speaking of himself in the third person
(John 21:20-24). Since he occupied the place of honor at the
last supper (John 13:23-25), he must have been either Peter,
James, or John. But Peter is distinguished from him by name (John
13:23-25; 20:1-8; 21:7,20-24), and James was dead long before
the fourth gospel account was written (Acts 12:1-2). The only
logical choice is John. External evidence is overwhelming. Theophilus
of Antioch wrote in about 170, "And hence the holy writings
teach us, and all the spirit-bearing (inspired) men, one of whom,
John, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God." (Thiessen. 164). Of course, this is a quotation of
John 1:1.
Overall
To summarize the judgment of the second century church concerning
the authorship of the four gospel narratives, hear the testimony
Irenaeus, writing about 180 AD, as recorded by the historian
Eusebius in the fourth century:
Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews [i.e., Jews]
in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel
in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure
[i.e., death...], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's
preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the
gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the
Lord, who also leaned on his breast..., himself produced his
Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. (Montgomery.
33-34)
How seriously should we take Irenaeus' testimony?
The value of Irenaeus remarks is especially great because
he had been a student of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, martyred
in AD 156, after being a Christian for 86 years. Polycarp in
turn had been a disciple of the Apostle John himself. Irenaeus
had heard from Polycarp the eyewitness accounts of Jesus received
from John and others who had been personally acquainted with
Jesus. (Ibid. 34)
Skeptics
How do the skeptics deal with this clear evidence from ancient
sources? Sanders claims:
To members of the winning party (those who wanted four
and only four gospels), it was important to be able to attribute
the right, gospels to people who, historically, were closely
connected with Jesus or his greatest apostles. (65)
Why not just attribute them to the "greatest apostles,"
Peter, James, and Paul, rather than to obscure companions, Mark
and Luke, and an obscure apostle, Matthew?
But this attempt to escape uniform, ancient testimony runs
headlong into a stubborn fact: the enemies of the second century
church, those both within and without, also recognized four and
only four gospel accounts. One of the earliest and most infamous
heretics, Marcion, in about AD 140 accepted a mutilated form
of Luke as Scripture (Spence. iii). Valentinus, an heretic who
taught in Rome from ca. AD 139 to 160, cited Luke as Scripture
(Ibid). Heracleon, the follower of Valentinus, wrote commentaries
on Luke and John (Ibid). Basiledes, one of the earliest gnostics,
who taught in Alexandria, Egypt about AD 120, made references
to Matthew, Luke and John (Ibid. iv). And these early heretics
did not recognize any gospel accounts other than the four in
our Bible today. From outside the church, the pagan Celsus, in
his attack on Christianity written ca. AD 178, takes his material
from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and no other narratives of
the life of Jesus (Schaff. 1:708).
Negative Testimony?
And what testimony do the skeptics produce to counter these
ancient witnesses who lived in the very twilight of apostolic
times? None. Absolutely none. Their case is wholly negative,
an attack on the credibility of the consistent testimony of ancient
witnesses.
Conclusion
It is apparent that we have in the books of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John genuine, first century testimony concerning Jesus
of Nazareth. Matthew and John were actual eyewitnesses of the
events they recorded. Mark was a student of Peter, an eyewitness.
Not only was Luke a student of the apostle Paul, who saw the
raised Lord, he, as a good historian, also researched his subject
at a time when many eyewitnesses were still alive (Luke 1:1-4).
We should have no doubts concerning the genuineness of the gospel
accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.
________________
Works Cited
Montgomery, John Warwick. History and Christianity.
Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church.
Spence, H.D.M. "Luke." The Pulpit Commentary.
16.
Thiessen, Henry C. Introduction to the New Testament.
~ ~ ~
|
|
