Author : 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?
MatthewMatthew, 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).
MarkJohn 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).
LukeThe 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)
JohnCuriously, 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.
OverallTo 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)
SkepticsHow 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.
ConclusionIt 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.
