Who were the gospel authors, and what the heck do we know about them?
Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 1 viewNotes
Transcript
This is no minor point. We know their names, but who were they? What good reason do we have to believe they actually wrote them?
But, here’s the most important point of this discussion:
What implications might it have if in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them? This is a point critical to a very important key to open a door to much of the rest of the New Testament.
Before we get to each though, I want to make a quite obvious point. The point is this: I’ve heard it claimed (Muslims would be the most common) that these four didn’t write the gospels, or we have no way of knowing that they did. Fair enough. I’d probably want to make the same point if challenging historicity. So no shame in that claim. But I’d ask a question here:
Are we willing to treat that answer in the same way we’d make any other claim about similar historical documents?
So, if I said, “Contrary to the near unanimous attestation that Plato wrote The Republic in history, I don’t think he did.” “It’s anonymous.” Okay, we can say anything I suppose, but now that person would need to provide historical evidence that not only makes that case, but exceeds the evidence to the contrary (that we have very good reason to believe Plato wrote The Republic).
In other words, it’s not good enough to just say, it’s my opinion and so it’s true. We’d actually need to offer up some substantial argument for our position. So let’s think about both as we meander along here.
I would invoke the very simple but brilliant method here of Ockham's Razor (or the law of parsimony for the fancy folks): It is a principle from philosophy that we could unpack at length, but to keep simple, let’s summarize it as follows:
Suppose an event has two possible explanations. The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.
To demonstrate, here’s an oversimplified example:
When you see a bright light flash through your curtains, what do you think it is? Two possibilities may come to mind:
Option #1: It was a flash of lightning.
Option #2: It was a UFO.
You're jumping to a lot of conclusions if you assume the light was a UFO. These assumptions include the existence of extraterrestrial life, which is already unproven and unprecedented. It also assumes UFOs do in fact exist, can fly, are outside your house and hovering by your bedroom window flashing lights.
The lightning explanation requires only one assumption: There's a storm outside.
What an odd pivot you may say. Maybe. We’ll come back to this later.
The Gospel of Mark:
Let’s start with this:
Every textual manuscript we have of this gospel, all the early church fathers that mention it, attribute this gospel to Mark. We have no competing claims of any substance that someone else wrote it. So who is Mark?
John Mark Son of Mary (Acts 12:12), cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10), and missionary companion of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:5). According to church tradition (more on that later), John Mark was the author of the Gospel of Mark.
In first-century Palestine, it was common for a man to have two names: a Hebrew name (e.g., “John”), by which he was known to friends and relatives, and a Greek or Roman (Roman Christian) name (e.g., “Mark”), by which he was known in the business world (Barclay, Introduction, 151; Acts 12:12, 25). “Mark” appears to have been a common name in the first century. Consequently, it is difficult to know whether the person mentioned in Acts and Colossians is the “Mark” named elsewhere in the New Testament (2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24; 1 Pet 5:13; compare with John Mark in Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37, 39; Col 4:10).
John Mark in Acts and Colossians
John Mark is first mentioned in connection with his mother, who hosts a gathering of believers at her home in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). John Mark accompanies Paul and Barnabas when they return from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 12:25). He then serves as their “helper” during their missionary journey to Cyprus (Acts 13:5)
After the missionaries sail from Cyprus to Perga, John Mark returns to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Several theories have been proposed to account for John Mark’s departure, which the text does not explain (see Stott, The Message, 220). This event might be Paul’s reason for opposing John Mark’s participation in the subsequent journey (Acts 15:36–41). Because of the disagreement over John Mark, Paul chooses Silas and travels through Syria and Cilicia, while Barnabas and John Mark sail to Cyprus.
Whatever rift might have existed between Paul and John Mark seems to have been reconciled by the writing of Colossians, which identifies “Mark, the cousin of Barnabas,” among Paul’s “fellow workers” who had provided him comfort (Col 4:10–11).
Other References to “Mark”
Three New Testament letters mention a person named “Mark” who may or may not be the John Mark of Acts and Colossians. In 2 Timothy, Paul asks Timothy to bring Mark to Paul, because Mark was “useful to me for ministry” (2 Tim 4:11). A “fellow worker” named Mark is mentioned in the closing of Paul’s letter to Philemon (Phlm 24). These references are most likely to John Mark, based on their similarity to Col 4:10 (note especially the corresponding names in Phlm 23–24 and Col 4:10–13).
The conclusion of 1 Peter refers to “my son Mark” (1 Pet 5:13). In line with rabbinic tradition, this may simply imply that Mark was Peter’s disciple, not his actual son (b. Sanhedrin 19b; see also Clement, Stromata 1.12–13). Although there is no clear evidence of a link, it at least seems likely that the John Mark of Acts was acquainted with Peter (Acts 12:12–17).
John Mark as the Author of Mark’s Gospel
Church tradition identifies John Mark as the author of the second Gospel. The text of this Gospel does not state the name of its author; the attribution to Mark likely was added in the late first or early second century, when it became necessary to distinguish between the various accounts about Jesus. The earliest assertion of Mark’s authorship comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, at the start of the second century (ca. ad 110–150). Although Papias’ five-volume Interpretation of the Lord’s Sayings is lost, a description of its content is preserved by Eusebius, the fourth-century historian and bishop of Caesarea (ca. ad 260–340). According to Eusebius, Papias identified Mark as the author of a body of literature containing the words and deeds of Jesus (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15). In addition, Papias reported that Mark received his information from Peter’s teaching—a detail that makes John Mark’s authorship plausible, in light of Acts 12:12–17.
So, we know a few things from this. There was a man named Mark (which we know is a first century Palestinian name from census data) who is mentioned many, many times in the NT. We also know that this Mark was a companion of Paul, Barnabas and Peter.
Pausing here.
I suppose it would be legitimate to say, yes, but we have no way of proving the companion of Peter is the same companion of Paul. That would be true. But we also have no good reason to argue that he’s not. What we know is that a man bearing the same name is mentioned with both, and the writers didn’t seem to feel the need to offer up an explanation. That would make more sense if he was well known, and understood enough to not warrant further clarification. But now we begin to combine church tradition. One might say that if something like a dogma appeared that claims to be true in the 9th century, we should doubt its claim given the length of time from the gospel narratives. That would be fair. But we have a church father - Papias - who we know from Irenaeus was a disciple of the beloved apostle John who claims this same John Mark wrote the gospel of Mark. And he’s making the claim in the 1st century, only decades after Jesus and who is a hearer of John the apostle.
So, here’s what we have:
The NT claims a man by this name was a companion of the two of the most important apostles in history.
We have the very earliest church fathers who verify the same.
They also tell us that he was Peter’s secretary, and recorded Peter’s sermons.
We also know the gospel of Mark matches almost identically Peter’s sermons in Acts.
Lastly, every work and manuscript in the centuries thereafter bear his name, with no competing claims of authorship, or any recorded disagreement that he in fact wrote it.
Lastly, if one wanted to legitimize a gospel (if we were to play devil’s advocate and say it was made up that he wrote it), why on earth would you choose Mark? Wouldn’t it be more legitimate to name an apostle? A relative of Jesus? One would only name a minor person if in fact it were true.
Now, back to Ockham's Razor. Which makes more sense:
That Mark in fact wrote it… Who is mentioned quite a lot in the NT as being in a position to know all the things his gospel records, every early church father attests that he wrote it, and every manuscript we have is attributed to him as the author, AND we have no other historical evidence of authorship from anyone else
OR
Some other person who we have no record of in the Bible, no record of in the the early church, no record of from the disciples, no logical connection to how he would know the information in the gospel, no knowledge from the next generation of disciples and/or from every early manuscript, is in fact the author?
So if we want to say Mark is not the author, and he is not who the NT and earliest witnesses say he is, one must construct some sort of logical argument that carries more weight than the prevailing opinion. Not only who he was, but why he would be privy to any of the information listed in the gospel narrative?
Luke