The Gospels and the Men Who Wrote Them
September 6th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Today we will consider a second reason why the NT gospels are reliable accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus.
Not only are they consistent with previous revelation from God (in the Old Testament), but they were also written by those who were closely associated with Jesus and His ministry—men who were either eye-witnesses or had access to first-hand information about Jesus and His life.
A second reason to trust the NT gospels is that they were written by those closely associated with Jesus and His ministry.
Two of the gospels, Matthew and John, were penned by disciples of Jesus and provide eye-witness testimony to the events they discuss (cf. John 1:14; 21:20–25; 1 John 1:1-4). The Gospel of Mark was written by a close friend and associate of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 5:13; cf. Acts 12:12). In fact, the early Christian leader Papias (c. 60-c. 130) reported that “Mark became an interpreter of Peter; as many things as he remembered he wrote down accurately (though certainly not in order) the things said or done by the Lord” (Fragments of Papias 2:15). So Mark’s gospel reflects the memoirs of Peter, which Mark preserved by writing down.
Luke (who wrote both the third gospel and the book of Acts) was the traveling companion of the apostle Paul (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; Col. 4:14), and was a careful researcher. Luke himself reports that he wrote his gospel, “having investigated everything carefully from the beginning . . . so that you may know the exact truth” (Luke 1:3-4). The biblical gospels, then, are the product of eye-witness testimony (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:21-22; Gal. 1; Heb. 2:3; 2 Peter 1:16), either first-hand (in the case of Matthew and John) or second-hand (in the case of Mark and Luke). As those who venerated Jesus, they took special care in giving solemn testimony to His life (Acts 2:40; 8:25; 10:42; 18:5; 20:21; 28:23; 1 John 1:2; 4:14; 2 Pet. 1:16-20; Rev. 1:2).
That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual authors of the gospels that bear their names is overwhelmingly supported by the testimony of church history, with affirmation coming from early Christian leaders such as Papias (c. 60-c. 130), Justin Martyr (100-165), Polycrates (c. 130-196), Irenaeus (c. 140-c. 202) who cites Polycarp (c. 69-160), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215), Tertullian (c.160-c. 220), Origen (c.185-c. 254), Eusebius (c. 263-c. 339), Jerome (c. 345-420) and others. Never is the fourfold gospel seriously questioned. In the words of Irenaeus (c. 140-c. 202):
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. . . . And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. (Against Heresies, 3.11.8)
Irenaeus continues by listing the four gospels as we know them today: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Of course, nearly a century earlier, Papias had already given testimony to these same four books.[1] According to the church historian Eusebius, Irenaeus also received some of his information from Polycarp, who was taught these things by the apostles (Eusebius, Church History, 4.14.3–8; cf. 2 Tim. 2:2).
Internal evidence, coming from the books themselves, is consistent with the testimony of church history. For example, Matthew’s gospel frequently references the Old Testament, and describes Jesus’ interaction with the Jews in a way that suggests its author was a native Jew.[2] It also puts greater emphasis on numbers and on money than the other gospels, a characteristic that would be consistent with the author’s occupation as a tax collector (Matthew 9:9).[3] In Mark’s gospel, the apostle Peter is cast in a more negative light than in the other gospels (cf. Mark 8:32-33; 14:29-72), suggesting that he was the self-effacing source from which Mark received his information. The author of Luke also wrote Acts (compare Luke 1 with Acts 1) and was a traveling companion of Paul (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16). He is explicit in emphasizing that he researched his information thoroughly (Luke 1:1-4), as is seen in the many historically verifiable details he includes (some of which will be considered in a later post). This is fitting for one who was trained as a physician (Col. 4:14).
The author of John speaks of himself only as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:7). This corresponds to John’s emphasis on love in his three epistles (1 John 3:16, 23; 4:9-10, 19; 2 John 1:6). Moreover, the author was a disciple (cf. John 21:2, 20, 24), one of the Twelve (John 13:23-24; cf. Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14), an eye-witness to the events of Christ’s life and death (John 1:14; 19:26,35), and among the inner circle of Christ’s followers, but not Peter (cf. John 20:2-10; Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33). Only John and his brother James fit these criteria. But since James was martyred early in church history (Acts 12:2), the evidence points to John as the author (cf. John 21:22-23). The fact that much of John’s material is unique (intended as a supplement to the other gospels) suggests that someone with authority must have written it, otherwise the early church would have never accepted it as factual.
In all four cases, the internal evidence (meaning details within the book itself such as writing style, biographical data, and historical details) and the external evidence (meaning non-biblical testimony that affirms the authorship of a given book) consistently and repeatedly affirm the authorship of the gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. On the flip side, there is nothing that should cause us to question their authenticity.
* * * * *
Notes:
[1] John Chapman, “St. Papias” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911).
[2] In this regard, A. Lukyn Williams, in St. Matthew, vol. 1, The Pulpit Commentary, notes: “That the author was a Jew will be granted by all. A Gentile Christian never would or could have described the relation of Jesus to the Jews and to their teaching in the way that the author has described it. The fact of his Jewish standpoint is further indicated by his Old Testament quotations.”
[3] Per Daniel Wallace, “Matthew: Introduction, Argument, Outline”; Online source.
Does anybody know of some papers (or books if need be…) and/or links on the defense of the Biblical writers being able to use Greek.
The argument goes along the lines of “fishermen like Peter, James, and John or carpenters like Jude and James did not know how to read at all, let alone write Greek.”
Look in A Harmony of the Gospels (NASB) by Robert Thomas (TMS NT prof) and Stanley Gundry. In the back are “Essays Related to Harmonistic Studies.” #8 is “The Languages Jesus Spoke.”
The conclusion is that ” . . . Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic were all commonly spoken and/or understood among the Palestinian Jews of Jesus’ day.”
There are two citations at the end of the essay for further reading.
We’ve all heard the argument you quoted, but it’s in the same category as claiming that written language wasn’t sufficiently sophisticate by the time of Moses to allow him to write the pentateuch. The argument sounds plausible to the doubters, but it doesn’t stand up to historical evidence.
I suspect Nate Busenitz can put you on to other resources in further posts or when he sees your question.
Jim
You wrote: “Two of the gospels, Matthew and John, were penned by disciples of Jesus and provide eye-witness testimony to the events they discuss” — while this is true it seems you failed to notice one important fact that can be seen when the gospel records are compared.
The Mt. of Transfiguration, the prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, the raising of the daughter of Jairus — the events that the first three gospels specifically tell us that the Apostle John was an eyewitness to — these events are all missing from the fourth gospel.
http://www.TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com notes this fact along with other important Biblical evidence on the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” and since it cites only evidence from the Bible and nothing else you may want to heed the admonition to “prove all things” rather than simply repeating a man-made tradition.
Jim (not Harris),
Your site made some interesting connections in contending that Lazarus was the author of the fourth gospel. While it is true that Lazarus was a follower of Jesus, and that he was loved by Jesus, there is nothing in the text that necessarily connects Lazarus with “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” But there are some important points that would argue against such a conclusion. I do not have time today for a detailed discussion on this, so I’ll make a couple quick points.
First, the way Lazarus is identified in John 11 is not consistent with the way “the disciple whom Jesus loved” identifies himself throughout the rest of the gospel.
Second, the author of the gospel has first-hand knowledge of what Jesus is doing while Lazarus is in the tomb, including conversations that Jesus had with his disciples during those few days. This suggests that Lazarus was not the author.
Third, your view assumes that Lazarus was present for certain events such as Jesus’ baptism, the wedding at Cana, the woman at the well, and the upper room. It also assumes that Lazarus was accompanying Jesus’ mother at the crucifixion, rather than John (19:27). It likewise suggests that Peter and Lazarus were those who came to the tomb to check on the report of the women (20:4), and that Lazarus witnessed Peter’s reconciliation with Christ after the resurrection (21:20). We have no indication from anywhere else (synoptic testimony or church history) that Lazarus was present for or prominent in any of these events.
Fourth, all those present with Jesus in the upper room are described as those whom Jesus “loved” (13:1, 34). So the fact that Lazarus is so described (along with Mary and Martha — 11:5), does not necessarily single him out as the author. The apostle John (in his three epistles) emphasized being loved by His Savior — so his self-identification as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” would not be unexpected.
Finally, there is no known testimony from early church history to support the idea that Lazarus wrote this gospel. Why would early Christians unanimously ascribe this work to John, if they all knew that Lazarus actually wrote it. Given Lazarus’ fame (as an individual whom Jesus raised from the dead), the church would have been eager to include his testimony (had he written this gospel).
This is admittedly a quick response, so I’m sure additional thoughts could be added. While some of your ideas seem interesting, I think your final conclusions are built primarily on conjecture. The difficulties with your view, from both the internal evidence and the external record of church history, make your conclusions ultimately untenable.
That being said, I do appreciate your comments, and your obvious desire to look to the Scriptures in all things. Thank you for the interchange.
- NB
Nate,
Regardless of who the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was, the Biblical evidence proves that he cannot have been the Apostle John. The fact that there is not even a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea — not one verse and yet this man-made tradition is presented AS IF it were Biblical! But beyond this the facts preserved for us in the Biblical record prove that John cannot possibly be the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” because this would require the Bible to contradict itself, which it cannot do.
Some people fail to see that arguing against alternate suggestions as to who this disciple was does not answer the problem of promoting the man-made John idea AS IF it were Biblcal, since those who do so cannot cite even one verse that would justify teaching this idea. They are reduced to pointing to this-or-that non-Bible source but the fact that they have to rely on non-Bible sources and cannot cite even one verse that justifies what they are presenting should make anyone who knows Ps. 118:8 think twice about rushing to parrot this tradition.
If you care about the truth, then put first things first. Forget about the Lazarus idea and heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” as concerns the John idea. Search the scriptures (as opposed to the opinions found in non-Bible sources) to see if this thing is so. If you do you will find that the John tradition is not so – because the Bible cannot be wrong.
Jim,
You have spoken several times of evidence that proves that John is not the author of the book of John. Would you mind giving some of that evidence? Also, I would not go so far as to say, just because some of the accounts from the first three gospels, the ones that say John was an eye witness, are not recorded in the book of John, that John could not be the author.
If I can add to Daniel’s point, that would give evidence that it could still be John. John is not a synoptic gospel, meaning that he (the author) was not particularly interested in giving all the same historical events. That gospel filled in gaps that the others did not mention. If John was present in some events, as mentioned in the synoptics, then he would have no reason to include those events in his own. The evidence that it was John is the eye witness accounts and placement of that “disciple whom Jesus loved” in critical scenes where we only have a few individuals to choose from. “John” is never mentioned in the 4th gospel by name. Yet we all know he is there! Literary evidence must also play into the argument (1,2, 3 John, Revelation).
Daniel,
The evidence is posted on http://www.TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com — so rather than cut and paste that evidence here it seems fair to suggest that you read the Bible-only evidence presentation which this free ebook lays out. It contrasts facts found in scripture regarding John with what scripture tells us about the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” and since the John idea would necessarily mean that the Bible conradicted itself those who trust the scriptures must conclude that the non-Bible sources that are used to justify the man-made John tradition are in error on this point.
By the way note that none of those non-Bible sources that are used to defend the John idea can cite even a single verse that would justify teaching this idea — and this the first clue that would lead one to subject this idea to Biblical scrutiny.
Some points to look for when you read the fourth gospel — not one of the events where John is named as participating in other three gospels is described in the gospel that we are told is John’s eyewitness testimony. Does this make sense?
Moreover John was one of three selected witnesses at The Mount of Transfiguration, the prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, the raising of the daughter of Jairus and we are to believe that it makes sense to believe that ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ would omit any mention of these events?
The breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup at Jesus’ last passover are NOT in the fourth gospel. Certainly this was a very important moment and we know that John was there for this and yet we are to believe that his ‘eyewitness testimony’ regarding the ministry of Jesus would leave this out?
And neither John nor anybody else can belielve and not believe at the same time. Neither John nor anybody else can be both known and not known at the same time. Yet these are just two of the contradictions that arise when one subjects this false tradition to Biblical scrutiny.
“Prove all things” is a good rule of thumb and Ps. 118:8 is a clear warning to those who would prefer non-Bible sources as their standard of truth on any Bible question.
Dan W.,
The FAQ page on the site mentioned deals with the problems of trusting the opinions of those who suggest that we add John’s name to the Bible based on the supposed ’style’ similarities between the anonymous fourth gospel and the anonymous letters that the want to claim as the basis of comparision.
As opposed to any opinion of style, the book simply contrasts the facts found in the plain text that is available for all to read and consider. And since the facts in the text prove that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” cannot be John no opinion of ’style’ that can over come the text itself.
Besides this is the fact that John openly identifies himself multiple times in Revelation and this difference in BEHAVIOR that is presented in the text itself is a stark contrast with the author of the forth gospel who goes to great lengths to conceal his idenity.
And let those who want to claim that John was the forth gospel explain how it is that the author’s of the first three gospels freely mention John except when John was busy calling himself the one whom “Jesus loved” in the fourth gospel? They never mention anything regarding “the disciple whom Jesus loved” so how did they know when to leave John out?
As the book demonstrates from scripture itself, the authors of the first three gospels treat John and the “other disciple” in a completely different manner – they freely mention one and they completely omit the other. Would this lead an unbiased jury to conclude that these are the same person? Hardly.
Jim,
Could you show me a verse or passage from John that clearly states that Lazarus is the author? Consider John chapter 21 where Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, The sons of Zebedee (James and John) and two other disciples are fishing. Was Lazarus a fisherman? In verse 7 it says that, “the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘it is Jesus.’” Also at the end of the chapter “the disciple whom Jesus Loved” is said to have written the book of John and explains why everything that he was a witness to is not recorded in his book in verse 25.
[...] The Gospels and the Men Who Wrote Them [...]
Surley it is not a good practice to present an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL when one can’t cite a single verse that would justify doing do. However this is what we see in the case of the John idea.
When one is asked for just one verse to justify what they believe and if they had one wouldn’t they just cite it?
But instead of doing so those who want to keep teaching the unbiblical John idea will seek to change the subject to get the focus off of the fact that there is no verse that would justify teaching this idea.
Yet if one rushes to shift the focus rather than simply pointing to a verse that would justify the John tradition, then this simply proves the point.
Daniel, one thing is true, whoever the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was the BIBLICAL EVIDENCE proves that he cannot be John. While you may like to think that arguing against other suggestions as to who this person might be is somehow a justification for teaching the John idea, but you would be wrong. Instead of trying to shift the focus off of the fact that the man-made John tradition is unbiblical, why not just admit that there is no verse that would justify teaching this idea?
Jim,
“The BIBLICAL EVIDENCE proves that he cannot be John.” What biblical evidence? I have not heard any evidence that proves that John is not the author. I agree with you one hundred percent that proving that someone else (Lazarus for example) is not the author does not prove that John IS the author, but I have not heard any evidence that leads me to believe that John is not the author. Do not get me wrong; I deeply respect your commitment to prove all things, and absolutely agree with you on this point. But the fact that someone does not state their name specifically in their book does not mean that they didn’t write it. On the other hand it makes it hard to prove that they did write it. I would have to do more study on this subject to give a definite answer.
Daniel,
You are of course correct to say that the mere fact that someone does not state their name specicifically in there would does not mean that they didn’t write it. However, in the caae of the fourth gospel it is not fact that the author did not mention his name is only of relavant when contrasted with the Book of Revelation when John refers to himself by name repeatedly — exhibiting a different BEHAVIOR than the author of the fourth gospel. While this in and of itself is not a reason to rule out John it is one of the MANY stark contrasts that one finds if they compare the facts in scripture about John with the facts in scripture about the “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.
More important is the fact that the fourth gospel author didn’t just fail to mention himself. Far from it. Unlike other New Testament books (Hebrews for example) where the author doesn’t mention himself, the author of the fourth gospel repeatedly insterts himself into the text but with a series of very cumbersome phrases — “other disciple whom Jesus loved”, “disciple whom Jesus loved”, “other disciple” etc. — an the author’s action to conceal his identity using these phrases is altogether different in this regard and invites us to investigate why he would have sought to do so.
http://www.TheDiscpleWhomJesusLoved.oom free ebook of course goes well beyond the mere fact as to how and why the author conceals and does present the Biblical evidence that rules out John — in fact the Biblical evidence actually rules out any of “the twelve” (which by the way explains why he designated himself the “other” disciple because he was “other” than “the twelve”). Again this is done by comparing the FACTS found in the plain text of the Biblcial record, facts about John and “the twelve” which are mutually exclusive with facts that we are told about this unnamed author.
You said you will do more study on this and I hope that the Lord leads you and others to do so. I commend you for being open to considering the question because many people won’t even allow themselves to cosider the idea that tradition could be wrong on this so they will never allow themselves to search the scriptures on this issue. I leave off here and won’t tie up any more space on this page except to say that if one will go back and simply read the fourth gospel from the beginning with the honest question “Who would I counclude the author was based on JUST THE FACTS FOUND IN THE TEXT?”, then they will NEVER come to the conclusion that this was John because NONE of the evidence in the text points toward John.