cure-real
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: How do we know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    14,417
    Blog Entries
    11

    How do we know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels?

    This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.


    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    one step closer to agnosticism every day
    Posts
    9,834
    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.
    This won't help as an answer but it will probably help you better define the question. I don't think the problem is "did matthew, mark, luke, and john" write the gospels, but who were they? They seem to be written almost 1 generation after Christ, so many non-believers claim thats enough time for a "normal" story to evolve into a legend.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.
    God bless
    There’s just so much to church history. I’ve been studying varying aspects on and off for about a year and a half and I still have so much to learn, but from my research none of the manuscripts have author names.

    The names were added later by the church. The names of each book were taken from the early church fathers, who quoted from the books and they would name the person who quoted it. This basically lets us know who wrote each book of the Gospels as they come from the writings of the first century Christians. With regard to Mark and Luke, we really don't know how close they were to the Jesus accounts but it assumed that they did have firsthand knowledge of Jesus.

    If you do decide to study this, please share as I’d love to hear what you uncover.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,278
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.

    God bless
    What does it matter the name of the Gospel if it was written by eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge? Not saying there isn't an issue, but just asking the question. You're most likely dealing with the work of G.A. Wells. He's been refuted numerous times by many different apologists.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in
    (Note to other posters: I am the someone being referred to here.)

    I did not say there was "no evidence."

    I said that the gospels themselves do not say who authored them, and it was only church figures decades later who attributed names to them. They may be right, but church tradition has been wrong before.

    As I said in the other thread:

    I'm not saying Mark and Matthew and Luke and John couldn't possibly be the authors. What I am saying, though, is we don't know it was those four with absolute certainty.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Jesus Christ is Lord and God.
    Posts
    2,289
    My understanding with regards to the book of Luke is that Luke uses medical terms that don't appear in any other gospel. Luke was a doctor.
    1Peter 3:15
    (BBE) But give honour to Christ in your hearts as your Lord; and be ready at any time when you are questioned about the hope which is in you, to give an answer in the fear of the Lord and without pride;

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    101
    Also both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were addressed to Theophilus (Lk. 1:3; Acts 1:1). This similarity, coupled with the statement, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus" seems to leave no doubt that Luke was the author of not only the Gospel of Luke but of Acts as well.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Naphal View Post
    My understanding with regards to the book of Luke is that Luke uses medical terms that don't appear in any other gospel. Luke was a doctor.
    Could you please provide examples?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    wny
    Posts
    753
    Blog Entries
    1
    We have a strong church tradition regarding authorship. I have yet to hear any other strong theories. It's fairly easy to try to poke holes at accepted tradition, it's a lot harder to come up with a theory that's anywhere close to as evidential.

    The Gospel According to Matthew
    50’s-60’s

    “Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew Language, and each one interpreted them as best he could” (Papias, 120)

    “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and paul were preaching at Rome” (Irenaeus, 180)

    “We will begin with Matthew, who is reported by tradition to have published his Gospel before the others. He wrote it to the Hebrews, namely, those of the circumcision who believed”
    (Origen, 228)
    The Gospel According to Mark
    50’s-60’s

    “Having become the interpreter of Peter, Mark wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. However, he did not relate the sayings or deeds of Christ in exact order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwords, as I said, he accompanied Peter.” (Papias, 120)

    “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to ous in writing what had been preached by Peter” (Irenaeus, 180)

    “In order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter, Mark wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark” (Clement, 195)
    The Gospel According to Luke
    60’s

    “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel in a book” (Irenaeus, 180)

    “By the style of writing, Luke may be recognized both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles and to have translated Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews” (Clement, 195)

    “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke” (Muratorian Fragment, 200)
    The Gospel According to John
    80’s-90’s

    “The fourth Gospel is that of John… it was revealed to Andrew that John should narrate all things in his own name, as they called them to mind” (Muratorian Fragment, 200)

    “What a mind, then, we must have to enable us to interpret this work in a worthy manner. This is so even though it has been committed to the earthly treasure house of common speech” (Origen, 228)
    The Fourfold Gospel
    Late 100’s

    “The Ebionites, who use only Matthew’s Gospel, are refuted out of this very same work…But Marcion, mutilating the Gospel according to Luke, is still proved to be blasphemous…from those passages which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ…prefer the Gospel of Mark. However, if they read it with a love of truth, they would have their errors rectified. Those persons, moreover, who follow Valentinus, make copious use of the Gospel according to John to illustrate their conjuctions. However, they, too, will be proved to be totally in error…It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number that they are. For, there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…it is fitting that she should have four pillars” (Irenaeus, 180)

    “The Gospel of Luke that we are defending with all our might has stood its ground…the same authority of the apostolic churches will afford defense of the other Gospels also…I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s, who interpreter Mark was. For men usually ascribe Luke’s form of the Gospel to Paul” (Tertullian, 207)

    “Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the church of God under heaven… Matthew was written first. The second one written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter… Third was the one according to Luke…This is the Gospel commended by Paul. Last of all, there is the one according to John” (Origen, 245)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cape Girardeau, Missouri
    Posts
    37
    the most liberal scholar or theologian would date paul’s first epistle to his disciple timothy no later than 63 a.d. therefore the gospel of luke could have been scribed no later than 60 or 61 a.d., because paul quotes the good doctor in 5:18 of timothy. in this verse, paul, the hebrew of the hebrews, whose reverence for the old testament is undoubted, goes so far as to simultaneously call both deuteronomy 25: 4 and luke 10:7 scripture!

    1Ti 5:18- For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward


    despite the relative young age of luke’s account of jesus’ life, paul, the former pharisee, shows no reluctance to ascribe the term scripture.

    you can even take this full circle, because in 2 peter 3:15-16, peter refers to the teachings of paul as scripture. these men, who would have died or killed to prove the veracity of the jewish torah, would not flippantly toss about the scripture tag unless they new it was god breathed.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cape Girardeau, Missouri
    Posts
    37
    very good matthew94.


    i was just going to comment on the writings of papias. as papias wrote his exegesis of jesus' words by interviewing the elders of the churches started by the apostles. some of these were taught directly by john and matthew and luke and mark.

    you are also correct on the fact that john mark was the scribe for peter.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cape Girardeau, Missouri
    Posts
    37
    another thought.

    if i as a leader in the early church, had the power to ascribe an assumed name for the authorship of the writings that will be used to promote the life and teachings of the man i believe is the savior of the world, outside of john, the other three would be the last ones picked.

    even john, in jewish culture, would not carry the weight of a peter or james. a tax collector, no way would i use a scoundrel like that, apostle or not, when i could use thomas. john mark deserted paul. and luke was a greek.

    it is interesting to note, that the much later gnostic writings used this very logic when naming their "gospels". peter, philip, mary, and thomas all have unispired writtings accredited to their names.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Taking a Vacation for While
    Posts
    1,685
    In addition to the points that have already been offered here, I would also point out that if somebody is going to dispute the position that the Gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they will need to provide credible evidence to the contrary. Simply accusing our existing evidence in support of their authorship of being insufficient is hardly conclusive. If they weren't the authors then where is the historical evidence to the contrary? Where is a credible statement from that time period that disputes the genuineness of their authorship?
    ----------------------------------------------
    When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Washington State, United States of America
    Posts
    7
    in reading from sources like wikipedia, and encyclopedia.com, there is sufficient thought and theory that suggests that the gospels of the new testiment were not written by the apostles they are named for, but that is all it is, just theory and suggestion. One major reference where you might find some information would be with Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
    Mr Bart Ehrman has received his Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and is known worldwide for his authorship and work relating to the history of the writings on the new testament.

    search all you want for all the information that you want and what you will find is theory and suggestion every time.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Washington State, United States of America
    Posts
    7
    James 1:5 (King James Version)
    5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

    If you ask of god with true intent, an open mind, and a humble heart, the truth shall be made knowen unto you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Matthew 1:16 vs Luke 3:23
    By Yishai in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: Jul 18th 2007, 11:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •