This section is not an attempting to prove who the authors are. Though it appears that way. It’s only responding to liberal scholars whose claim goes against the traditional thought on who the authors are.
Gospel of Matthew
First argument: It is argued that if the First Gospel used Mark as its primary source, it is most unlikely that an apostle (Matthew) would need to borrow from a non-apostolic source (Mark) (e.g., the commentators Allen, Schniewind, Grundmann, Beare; see also Bacon, Martin). Two Responses: 1) This observation appears most penetrating when one observes that, assuming Matthew used Mark, the apostolic author largely copied Mark’s account of his own call (Mt 9:9–13 par. Mk 2:13–17). However significant this objection may seem, and however many esteemed scholars rely on this source-critical argument, it is not finally persuasive. If one simply grants that Peter somehow stands behind Mark—and early Christian evidence supports this view (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15)—thereby lending it some level of apostolic authority, then Matthew’s use of Mark is hardly beneath apostolic dignity.
2) How do we know it was not the other way around, and it was Mark who copied Matthew? The evidence could work both ways.
Second argument: It is argued that the author did not write the Gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew but wrote in Greek, and that therefore the author could not have been the apostle Matthew (esp. Strecker). Response: There are some evidence of Greek word plays (e.g., 6:16; 21:41; 24:30) and signs of its dependence on the Septuagint (1:23; 11:10; 12:21; 13:14–15; 21:16). However, evidence clearly pointing toward a Greek original is not proof of a Gentile (or non-apostolic) author. Matthew, having been a tax collector, would very likely have been quite versatile in several languages. Being a tri-lingual person myself, I know of a lot of bilingual people. The argument over language proves little.
Third argument: Various scholars (e.g., Abel, Strecker) have pointed to features that suggest to them a Gentile author. These features include: (1) the universalism of the First Gospel (2:1–12; 4:14–16; 12:21; 28:19) when coupled with the condemnation of the Jewish nation (20:1–16; 21:28–32, 43; 27:25); (2) the torture of 18:34, which was not a Jewish practice (Jeremias 1972, 210–14); (3) the so-called misunderstood Hebrew parallelism of 21:5–7; and (4) various other non-Jewish features (5:43; 12:11–12; 27:5). For these scholars, this data points away from a Jewish (apostolic) author and toward a Gentile author. Response: Without going into details regarding each of these pieces of evidence, it must be said that neither universalism nor a clear stance against unbelieving Judaism (see McKnight) is evidence for non-Jewish authorship. There is nothing ideological in the First Gospel that is not also found in either the OT prophets or in the letters of Paul, sources which are clearly Jewish in origin.
Fourth (and final) argument: Against apostolic author ship pertains to the date of the First Gospel. Two responses: 1)If we assume that Matthew used Mark , and if Mark was written in the late 60s, say 68–70 (but before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; see Hengel, 1–30), then it follows that the First Gospel was written sometime after A.D. 70. Making allowance for enough time for Mark to circulate and gain authority, most scholars estimate that Matthew would have been written a decade later. If we grant that Mark could have been written as early as the mid-60s, we have the earliest possible date for Matthew between A.D. 75–80, with a date between A.D. 75–85 being widely held (the commentators Bonnard, Grundmann, Davies and Allison). Could the apostle Matthew have penned the Gospel that late? Why not?. The earliest Christian evidence does not suggest that Matthew died before A.D. 70 and so traditional authorship is not excluded even with a date as late as A.D. 85.
2) The traditional view is that the apostle Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. This tradition stems from the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (died c. A.D. 130). The record of Papias’s statement about Matthew survives only in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16). It reads, “Matthew collected (synetaxato ) the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language (Hebraidi dialektoµ ), and each interpreted (heµrmeµneusen ) them as best he could.” On first analysis the tradition of Papias appears to say that the apostle Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, and various translations were made of his work. So it was understood, with minor modifications, in the early churches (for texts see Orchard and Riley, 111–226).
Irenaeus confirms this analysis, adding that the First Gospel was composed while Peter and Paul were founding the church in Rome (Haer. 3.1.1; from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.8.2). Eusebius corroborates the Semitic origin in a legend concerning Pantaenus, who reportedly discovered a Semitic Matthew, supposedly brought to India (or Arabia) by Bartholomew (Hist. Eccl. 5.10.3). Origen affirms this tradition, adding only that the First Gospel was written for Jewish believers (Hist. Eccl. 6.25.4). In addition to passing on these traditions, Eusebius himself states that the occasion for the First Gospel was Matthew’s departure from Palestine (Hist. Eccl. 3.24.6). Further support for this traditional understanding of the origin of Matthew can be found in Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 14), Epiphanius (Haer. 30.3) and Jerome (Prol. in Matt.; Praef. in Quat. Ev.; Vir. 3).
Bibliography: W. C. Allen, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (ICC; 3d ed; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912); J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD; 12th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968); F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: A Commentary (New York: Harper and Row, 1982); B. W. Bacon, “The ‘Five Books’ of Matthew against the Jews,” The Expositor 15 (1918) 56–66; idem, Studies in Matthew (New York: Henry Holt, 1930); idem, “Why ‘According to Matthew’?” Expositor 20 (1920) 289–310; R. P. Martin, New Testament Foundations (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 1978); G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (3d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971); E. L. Abel, “Who Wrote Matthew?” NTS 17 (1971) 138–52; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (2d ed.; New York: Scribner’s, 1972); S. McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988); M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT; 3d ed; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1972); W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988); R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).
Gospel of Mark
Some more recent scholars have sought to distinguish between the Evangelist Mark, a companion of Peter (1 Pet 5:13), and John Mark, the associate of Paul in Acts and the Pauline corpus. Response:This distinction, requires special pleading. Apart from the absence of any solid basis for this distinction in the tradition, the mention of both Silvanus and Mark in 1 Peter 5:12–13 makes clear that “Mark” was the “John Mark” of Acts and the Pauline corpus who with Silvanus (Silas) had also been a companion of Paul. Therefore, Mark was the companion of both Peter and Paul, a member of the primitive community in Jerusalem that met in the upper room of his mother’s home (Acts 12:12) where Jesus might have celebrated the Last Supper (cf. Mk 14:14–15; Acts 1:13–14).
Traditionally, it is known as the “Gospel according to Mark.” Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, provides the earliest documentable testimony attributing a literary work to one named Mark. But Papias, whose five-volume work Interpretation of the Lord’s Sayings (c. A.D. 120/30) was cited by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15), claims to have learned this from another whom he calls the Elder: “And this is what the Elder said, ‘Mark, who became Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote, though not in order, as many of the things said and done by the Lord as he had noted.” The subsequent extant testimony of the late second century (e.g., the anti-Marcionite prolog; Irenaeus Haer. 3.1.1; Clement of Alexandria as cited by Eusebi us Hist. Eccl. 6.14; cf. 2:15) appears to be derivative of this tradition.
The Gospel of Luke
Internal features draw our attention to two points. First, the author is not an eyewitness to most of the events in his two volumes, especially those tied to the ministry of Jesus (1:1–2). Rather, he has relied on his study derived from eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word (1:2–4). Second, he presents himself as a companion of Paul in the so-called we-sections of Acts (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This latter feature, narrows the search for possible authors.
The Pauline letters name some of Paul’s traveling companions: Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke (Philem 24; Col 4:14). To this list one could add figures such as Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphras and Barnabas. Yet despite the wide selection of potential candidates, early-church tradition singles out one name as the author of these volumes: Luke. By A.D. 200 this tradition had become firmly fixed without any hint of contrary opinion.
Allusions to the Gospel appear early and exist in 1 Clement 13.2; 48.4 (late 90s) and in 2 Clement 13.4 (c. 150). In addition a use of Jesus’ teaching, similar to that found in Luke 10:7, appears in 1 Timothy 5:18. Numerous texts comment on the authorship of Luke-Acts. Justin (c. 160) in Dialogues 103.19 speaks of Luke having written a “memoir of Jesus” and notes the author was a follower of Paul. The Muratorian Canon (c. 170–180) attributes the Gospel to Luke, a doctor, who is Paul’s companion. Irenaeus (c. 175–195; Haer. 3.1.1; 3.14.1) attributes the Gospel to Luke, follower of Paul, and notes how the “we sections” suggest the connection. The so-called Anti-Marcionite Canon (c. 175) describes Luke as a native of Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:19–30; 13:1–3; 15:30–35), commenting that he lived to be eighty-four, was a doctor, was unmarried, wrote in Achaia and died in Boeotia. Tertullian (early third century; Marc. 4.2.2; 4.5.3) calls the Gospel a digest of Paul’s gospel. Finally, Eusebius (early fourth century; Hist. Eccl. 3.4.2) mentions that Luke was from Antioch, a companion to Paul and the author of the Gospel and Acts. The unified voice of these traditions regarding authorship enhances the identification of the Gospel with Luke, and also makes Luke’s connection to Paul very likely.
The strongest objection to Luke as the author is the contention that the author of Acts cannot have been a companion of Paul’s partly on account of the difficulties in reconciling some statements in Acts with what Paul says in his letters, that will be addressed when we cover Acts. But as of yet there is no controversy on its author.
|
