Chapter Nine AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPELS - INTERNAL EVIDENCE

INTERNAL EVIDENCE
In the previous chapter we have seen that the traditional names of the authors of the gospels were reliant on the testimonies of Papias (c60-130) and Irenaeus (c130-c200). The gospels initially circulated anonymously. They were probably known, or differentiated, based on the incipit, or the first line of the gospel. Their names were guesses first made probably by these two church fathers. Whether their guesses are correct or not will depend on the evidence we can find within the gospels themselves. This is the task we have in front of us.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Anyone who has read the gospels will notice that Matthew, Mark and Luke report many common incidents and sayings of Jesus and that they all share a common narrative framework. It was the German New Testament scholar, Johann Griesbach (1745-1812) who introduced the term synoptics, from the Greek word for seen together, for these three gospels. Johns gospel, on the other hand, has a different framework and describes different events. It also devotes much space to long speeches of Jesus which are very unlike those reported in the synoptics. No attempt at harmonization has ever worked.1 The gospel of John will be treated separately later in this chapter. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:1:1) was also the first to give a chronological sequence of the writing of the four gospels: Matthew wrote first, followed by Mark, Luke and, finally, John. This tradition of Matthews primacy was repeated throughout Christian history. The church father, Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), said that the earliest gospels were those with Jesus family tree. We find Jesus genealogies in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Another church father, Origen (c185-254), said that the first gospel was written in Hebrew by Matthew. Augustine (354-430), one of the most important theologians of early Christianity, stated that Mark copied and abbreviated Matthew. It is because of this tremendous weight of tradition that it became established as a fact that Matthew was the earliest gospel and that its author was one of the twelve apostles. However as we have noted in the previous chapter, B.H. Streeter (1874-1937) pointed out that the church fathers read one anothers work, with the later ones merely copying and expanding the works of their predecessors with no new information. This weight of tradition is really nothing more than the church fathers uncritical acceptance of the assertions of their ecclesiastical forerunners.2
1 2

Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p31 Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p140-142 Streeter, The Primitive Church: p16-18
250

Indeed this weight of tradition really does not mean anything, for the claim of Matthean priority is demonstrably untrue. The next section examines the compelling case for Markan priority.

THE PROOF OF MARKAN PRIORITY

The traditional belief that Matthew was the earliest gospel written was finally shown to be false in 1835 by the German philologist and textual critic, Karl Lachman (17931851). He amassed evidence showing that the gospel of Mark was the earliest of the synoptics and that the authors of Matthew and Luke copied extensively from it. Since then it has been further refined by other scholars such as H.J. Holtzman (18321910) and B.H. Streeter (1874-1937). This explanation of the similarities and differences found in the synoptics (known as the synoptic problem) is now called The Two Source Hypothesis3 (TSH) and now accepted by most scholars to be the solution to the synoptic problem. The main alternative to this is the Greisbach Hypothesis (GH), named after Johann Greisbach who postulated that Matthew was the common source of Mark and Luke.4 In presenting the evidence for the two-source hypothesis we will be looking at how it could be explained by the alternate hypothesis proposed by Greisbach. There are three main groups of evidence: the pattern of the internal contents, the order of the gospels and the redactional changes.

Pattern of Internal Contents

The gospel of Mark consists of 661 verses. Both Matthew (1,068 verses) and Luke (1,149 verses) are comparatively larger works. Of the 661 verses found in Mark, Matthew repeats about 600 verses, while Luke uses about 350, some of which differ from the verses used by Matthew. From Marks 661 verses only 31 verses did not appear in some form or another in Matthew and Luke. In terms of vocabulary, of Marks 11,205 words only 132 have no parallel in Matthew (which has 18,293 words) and/or Luke (19,376 words). 97.2% (10,721 words) of the words in Mark have a parallel in Matthew, while 88.4% (9,743) of Mark have a parallel in Luke. Looked at another way, 59% of Matthews and 51% of Lukes language repeat Marks words. When Luke is quoting the sayings of Jesus from Mark, the similarity in words rises to 69%. Marks gospel can also be divided in another, more natural way, into separate episodes or pericopae. With this method we can divide Marks gospels in 88 separate episodes. Of these 88 only three - Mark 4:26-29 [the seed growing of itself], 7:31-37 [healing of the deaf mute], 8:22-26 [healing of the blind man]- are not found in the other two gospels.5
3

The hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used two main sources for their respective gospels: Mark and a now lost sayings collection called Q [from the German word Quelle for source]. See the later section in this chapter on Q. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: p114-115 Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: p50 Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p141 Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: p111 Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament: p56-57
251

These statistics make the use of Matthew (or Luke) by Mark extremely unlikely. Why would Mark, if he was copying one of the other ignore about 41% of Matthew and almost half of Luke? Why ignore the stories of the virgin birth, the birth of John the Baptist and the Sermon on the Mount? The latter is especially hard to explain if Mark has Matthew in front of him. Mark6 placed a heavy emphasizes on Jesus teachings in his gospel the noun or verb for teach can be found throughout (e.g. Mark 1:21-22, 2:13, 4:1-2, 6:2, 8:31, 12:35) for him to ignore a whole chunk of Jesus teaching (Matthew 5:1-7:29) is inexplicable.7 The counter argument that Mark was meant as an abridgement of Matthew (or Luke) - originally suggested by Augustine (354-430) - does not work. While it is true that Mark is shorter overall, this pattern is not seen in individual episodes. In comparing 51 stories in common between these gospels, Robert H. Stein has shown that Mark has the longest account in 21 of these, with Matthew having the longest in 11 and Luke in 10. In the other nine, where the longest and second longest differ by only three words or less, Mark is always one of the two longest account. This pattern is difficult to explain within the context of the GH why would Mark abridge the length by reducing the number of episodes but expand the individual episodes he retained? Within the context of the TSH the explanation comes naturally. Both Luke and Matthew had additional stories that they included in their gospel. They generally abbreviated Marks episodes so that while the stories in Mark are included in their gospels, it allows space for the others.8

The Order of the Gospels

The order of Marks narrative is supported most of the time by the gospels of Matthew and Luke. In those cases where either Matthew or Luke diverged from Marks order, the other is usually found supporting it. There is no case where Matthew and Luke agreed with each other in their order against Mark. Whenever both Matthew and Luke diverged from Mark they also diverged from one another. Where Matthews order agrees with Luke, it begins and ends with the pattern of events in Mark. Marks order is basic to the other two gospels. Many of Marks verses are found in both Matthew and Luke: these are referred to as the Triple Tradition. While there are about 200+ verses that Matthew and Luke have in common which are not found in Mark. This is known as the Double Tradition.9 In those stories that Matthew and Luke share with Mark (whether it is just one of them with Mark or as part of the triple tradition) we find that they always have the same sequence as Mark. Yet when it comes to the Double Tradition, their
Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p140 Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: p50-52 I am using Mark here to mean simply the [unnamed] author of the second gospel. It does not mean that I am in agreement with the traditional attribution of this gospel to John Mark, interpreter of Peter. The same holds for my use of Matthew, Luke and John throughout this book. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: p55 Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p142 Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: p52-55 For an explanation of this Double Tradition see the section on Q below.
252

7 8

order diverged from each other completely. This is hard to explain if Luke knew Mark and Matthew. Why would he only keep the sequence of Markan material, but juxtapose the Matthean material anyway that suits him? The same argument holds also if we assume Matthew knew Luke and Mark. The order of the synoptics tell us not only that Marks order is fundamental to the synoptics but that Luke and Matthew are works that are independent of one another.10 Table 9.1 on the next page provides us with such an example. 11 Note that all three gospels follow the same order initially. However at Mark 2:23-28 Matthew diverges in his order. The asterisk in Table 9.1 shows where the divergence began.
Episode Healing of the Paralytic Calling of Matthew About Fasting The Lord of the Sabbath The Withered Hand Crowds Follow Jesus The Twelve Apostles Beelzebub Jesus Renounces Family The Sower Kingdom not for Everyone The Sower Parable Explained Matthew 9:1-8 9:9-13 9:14-17* 12:1-8# 12:9-21 10:1-4 12:22-32 12:46-50 13:1-9 13:10-13 13:18-23 Mark 2:1-12 2:13-17 2:18-22 2:23-28 3:1-6 3:7-11 3:13-19 3:23-30 3:20-21; 3:31-35 4:1-8 4:9-12 4-13-20 Luke 5:17-26 5:27-32 5:33-39 6:1-5 6:6-11 6:17-19* 6:12-16 11:14-20 8:19-21 8:4-8# 8:9-10 8:11-15

Table 9:1 The Markan Order Table 9.2 below gives this Matthean divergence. From 9:35 to 11:30 Matthew went his own way. Luke shared many of the same episodes as Matthew here but they are not at all in the same order. The Matthean story returned to the Markan sequence at Matthew 12:1: indicated by the # sign in Table 9.1. Note that all this time while Matthew was merrily going his own way Luke was following the Markan order.

Episode The Harvest is Great

10 11

Matthew 9:35-38

Mark 6:6b ; 6:34

Luke 8:1, 10:2

Ehrman, The New Testament: p78 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p57-58
253

Commissioning the Twelve Fate of the Disciples Nothing is Concealed Divisions within Households Conditions of Discipleship John the Baptist Woes Thanksgiving

10:1-16 10:17-25 10:26-33 10:34-36 10:37-42 11:2-19 11:20-24 11:25-30

6:7; 3:13-19; 6:8-11 13:9-13

9:1, 6:12-16, 9:2-5, 10:3 12:11-12, 6:40, 21:12-19 12:2-9 12:51-53 14:25-27, 17:33 7:18-35 10:12-15 10:21-22

Table 9.2 Matthean Divergence Similarly Luke diverged from the Markan order after 6:19 and do not join back the main Markan sequence until 8:4. [See Table 9.3 below for the Lukan divergence] There are parallel episodes with Matthew but they do not share the same order. Note again that while Luke left the order, Matthew can be found to be supporting the Markan order.
Episode Sermon on the Plain The Centurion The Widows Son John the Baptist Woman with Ointment The Ministering Woman Matthew 8:5-12 11:2-19 26:6-13 Mark Luke 6:20-49 7:1-10 7:11-17 7:18-35 7:36-50 8:1-3

14:3-9

Table 9.3 Lukan Divergence The German New Testament scholar, Werner Kmmel called the evidence from order decisive for establishing Markan priority. In other words, it showed clearly Matthews and Lukes dependence on Mark.

Redactional Changes
Sometimes we find that Mark contains theologically difficult passages which were smoothed over by Matthew and/or Luke. Take for instance the excerpt below from chapter 10 of Mark:
Mark 10:17-18 (RSV) And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Here we see Jesus is depicted as expressly denying any claim to divinity, a factor which, by the time Matthew came to be written, was already starting to gain ground in Christianity. We see how Matthew altered Marks account:
254

Matthew 19:16-17 (RSV) And behold, one came up to him, saying, Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life? And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

Note that Matthew has changed the question and taken out the good before teacher. He has also altered Jesus reply such that it no longer reads like a straightforward denial of his divinity. It is easily conceivable how Matthew could have altered Mark for theologically motivated reasons. It is inconceivable how Mark could have altered the Matthean version to reach his. Again the evidence point towards Matthew copying from Mark and not vice versa.12 In many passages in his gospel, Mark portrayed Jesus with human emotions and gestures; Jesus is sometimes amazed or sorrowful, angered or grieved. By the time Matthew and Luke came to be written it had become difficult for the author to view Jesus Christ as a man with human emotions. They thus altered any passage they find in Mark that has Jesus displaying them. Take for instance the episode below:
Mark 10:13-16 They were bringing to him little children, that he should touch them, but the disciples rebuked those who were bringing them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them, Allow the little children to come to me! Dont forbid them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Most certainly I tell you, whoever will not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, he will in no way enter into it. He took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

Now let us look at how Luke and Matthew altered this episode to fit with their own preconceived theology.
Matthew 19:13-15 Then little children were brought to him, that he should lay his hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Allow the little children, and dont forbid them to come to me; for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to ones like these. He laid his hands on them, and departed from there. Luke 18:15-17 They were also bringing their babies to him, that he might touch them. But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. Jesus summoned them, saying, Allow the little children to come to me, and dont hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Most certainly, I tell you, whoever doesnt receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, he will in no way enter into it.

Notice how both Luke and Matthew omitted Marks phrase, he was moved with indignation, a very human emotion. The two evangelists also omitted the human gesture of Jesus taking the children in his arms. Matthew gives only the laying of hands, an impersonal religious gesture. Again we can explain why Luke and Matthew
12

Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p143-145 Schenelle, The New Testament Writings: p169
255

would have changed the account in Mark, given the development of Christology in primitive Christianity. It would be harder to explain why Mark would have made those changes given this evolution of the image of Jesus.13 Mistakes in copying the Markan account by the other two evangelists also betray the second gospel as the source for them. The episode on Herod Antipas and John the Baptist which can be found in Mark 6:14-29 and Matthew 14:1-13 provide us with a couple of examples of these. In an attempt to create a more elegant version of Mark, Matthew tripped all over himself and produced a flawed version. Marks account above tells of King Herod having John imprisoned because of his wifes demand (Mark 6:17). But he also respected John and liked listening to him (Mark 6:20). When Herodias daughter demanded Johns head, Herods reaction of being greatly distressed makes sense (Mark 6:26), as he did not want to kill John, but in view of the situation had no choice. When we look at Matthew, we see that he had twisted the story such that it is now slightly different from Marks. Unlike in Mark, where Herod was said to like and respect John, Matthew said that Herod wanted to kill the Baptist from the beginning but feared the people. (Matthew 14:5) Matthew then reverted to Marks account and said that Herod was greatly distressed when he heard the girls request (Matthew 14:9). But describing Herod as being greatly distressed does not make sense in Matthews account for we are told that Herod wanted to kill John from the beginning. In Matthews story, the request of the daughter of Herodias would have made an excellent excuse to have John killed. In short, Matthew by setting out to create an improved version of Mark, ended with a blunder of inconsistency.14 Another minor mistake is in the title used by Herod Antipas. His official title was Tetrarch, as Matthew 14:1 rightly denotes. Mark consistently used the more popular, but incorrect, title; king. (e.g. Mark 6:14) but later on in the passage Matthew forgot this and simply put king instead of tetrarch (Matthew 14:9, Mark 6:26), betraying Mark as his source. A comparison of the grammar of the three gospels leads us to the same conclusion. We find in Mark a roughness in style and grammar not seen in Matthew and Luke. The preservation of Aramaic words in Mark (e.g. 3:17 boanerges, 5:41 talitha cumi, 7:11 corban, 7:34 ephphatha. 14:36 abba) is also generally considered to be further proof of the primitiveness of Mark. 15 All these considerations, taken together, provide a compelling case for Markan priority. They show us that Mark wrote first and the other two evangelists, independently, somehow got a hold of a copy of his gospel and incorporated it into their gospels. We have already remarked earlier on the Double Tradition passages which Luke and Matthew share in common that are not found in Mark. What can we say about this?

THE SECOND SOURCE OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

13 14 15

Parmalee, Guidebook to the Bible: p111 Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p142-143 Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: p56-66
256

When we have eliminated all Markan material from Matthew and Luke we still find another 220 or so verses that both these gospels have in common. We see that in more than a few cases these common passages have almost exact verbal correspondence. One example:
Matthew 3:7-10 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit worthy of repentance! Dont think to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father, for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesnt bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire. Luke 3:7-9 He said therefore to the multitudes who went out to be baptized by him, You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and dont begin to say among yourselves, We have Abraham for our father; for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones! Even now the axe also lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doesnt bring forth good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.

Although the evangelists had placed the episode of John the Baptist sermon in different contexts (in Matthew it was a warning to the Pharisees and Sadducees while in Luke it was a general warning to all the Jews) the word for word correspondence of the preaching rules out independent oral sources. The common source must be a written one. And since both Matthew and Luke were written in Greek (thus the word for word correspondence is in Greek) the original source must be in Greek as well. For it is most improbable that both Luke and Matthew would have hit upon so exact a translation from an original source document in Hebrew or Aramaic.16 This common source for Luke and Matthew is normally referred to as Q. The normal explanation for this is that it comes from the German word Quelle which means source or spring. Table 9.4 on the next page lists the common verses from Matthew and Luke generally agreed by scholars to have come from Q. These verses contain mainly of Jesus sayings with almost no narrative at all.17 The original Q is now lost but there is very little doubt that it once existed. Some scholars have raised the question as to why such an important document was allowed to disappear. The discovery at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945 of Gnostic gospels previously unknown to modern scholars such as The Gospel to the Egyptians and The Gospel of Truth show how completely a gospel could be suppressed when it becomes associated with a heretical sect.18 The recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas is another example. A possible, but by no means the only possibility, answer to this is that Q could have eventually become associated with a heretical sect (the
16

17

18

Guignebert, Jesus: p13 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p143 Guignebert, Jesus: p35 Parmalee, Guidebook to the Bible: p111 Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels: p15
257

Nazarenes?) and was eventually suppressed and suffered the same fate as the above Gnostic writings. To forgo the Q hypothesis, it must be postulated that either Luke copied Matthew or Matthew copied Luke. This is extremely unlikely. A comparison of Tables 9.1 and 9.4 show that there is little correspondence between Luke and Matthew in their order of presentation of the Q material. If both Matthew and Luke followed the order of gospel of Mark so closely, why would they ignore the others arrangement of the Q material so completely? This lack of correspondence suggests that the two evangelists did not have access to the others gospel. Both independently used Mark and Q as their source material. This also strengthens the case for Q being almost completely a collection of sayings with no narrative as there is no chronological order in a collection of isolated sayings.19
Sayings/Episodes I: The Preparation A. Johns Preaching of Repentance B. The Temptation of Jesus II: The Sayings A. Beatitudes B. Love to Ones Enemies C. Judging D. Hearer and Doers of the Word III. Narratives A. The Centurions Servant B. The Baptists Questions C. Christs Answer IV. Discipleship A. On the Cost of Discipleship B. The Mission Charge C. Christs Thanksgiving to the Father V. Various Sayings A. The Pattern Prayer B. An Answer to Prayer C. The Beelzebub Discussion and Its Sequel D. Sign of the Prophet Jonah E. About Light VI. Discourse Against the Pharisees A. Against the Pharisees Luke 3:7-9 4:1-13 6:20-23 6:27-36 6:37-42 6:47-49 7:1-10 7:18-20 7:22-35 9:57-60 10:2-16 10:21-24 11:2-4 11:9-13 11:14-23 11:29-32 11:33-36 Matthew 3:7-10 4:1-11 5:3,4,6,11,12 5:39-42,44-48,7:12 7:1-5;10:24;15:14 7:24-27 7:28;8:5-10,13 11:2-3 11:4-19 8:19-22 9:37-38;10:9-15;11:21-23 11:25-27;13:16-17 6:9-13 7:7-11 12:22-30 12:38-42 5:15;6:22-23

11:37-12:1

Chapter 23

19

The case for Q, unlike Markan priority, is not exactly settled yet. There are some prominent scholars, although in the minority, who do not accept the existence of Q as proven. These include William Farmer (see his book The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, Western North Carolina Press 1976), E.P. Sanders (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, SCM Press 1992), Michael Goulder (Luke: A New Paradigm, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) and Mark Goodacre (The Case Against Q, Trinity Press International, 2002).
258

VII. Sayings A. About Fearless Confession B. On Cares About Earthly Things C. On Faithfulness D. On Signs for This Age E. On Agreeing with Ones Adversaries VIII. Parables A. On the Mustard Seed and Leaven IX. Other Sayings A. Condemnation of Israel B. Lament Over Jerusalem C. The Wedding Feast D. Cost of Discipleship E. On Serving Two Masters F. On Law and Divorce G. On Offence, Forgiveness and Faith H. The Day of the Son of Man

12:2-12 12:22-34 12:39-46 12:51-56 12:57-59 13:18-21 13:23-30 13:34-35 14:15-24 14:26-35 6:13 16:16-18 17:1-6 17:23-27,33-37

10:19,26-33;12:32 6:19-21,25-33 24:43-51 10:34-36;16:2-3 5:25-26 13:31-33 7:13,14,22,23;8:11-12 23:37-39 22:2-14 10:37-39;5:13 6:24 11:12-13;15:18,32 18:6,7,15,20-22 24:17-18,26-28,37-41

Table 9.4: The probable contents of Q20

OTHER SOURCES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

The gospel of Matthew consists of slightly more than 1,000 verses, we have accounted for the source of about 800 of these (600 from Mark and 200+ from Q), the remaining 200+ verses are materials peculiar to Matthew. These include some sayings of Jesus (in chapters 5-7 [not found in Luke] and the final parable in chapter 25) and some narratives (the events surrounding the birth and resurrection of Jesus in Matthew chapters 1 to 3 and 28). It is here we see Matthews literary style taking free rein. This strongly suggests that either Matthew used oral sources for these or composed it himself. Scholars use the letter M to refer to this special source of Matthew.21 The gospel of Luke has about 1100 verses of which more than 500 verses, or about half the gospel, cannot be traced to either Mark or Q. As in Matthew, it is in these extra verses that we find Lukes unencumbered style. The distinctive Lukan words and phrases occur more frequently in these 500+ verses than anywhere else in his gospel. This again strongly suggests Lukes sources to be either from the oral community tradition or his own creative mind. The letter L is normally used to designate this Lukan special source.22 That some of Lukes sources are from oral tradition we can have some certainty. Luke shares many episodes and details with John which are not paralleled in the other two gospels. These similarities (see Table 9.5 below) do not have the close verbal correspondence that we see in the synoptics but share analogous outlines. Analogous events are placed in different contexts. For instance, the miraculous catch of fish was placed by Luke in Galilee early in the ministry of Jesus (Luke 5:1-11). John,
20 21

22

Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p150 Guignebert, Jesus: p14 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p152 Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p38 Caird, Saint Luke: p19 Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p38
259

however, placed this miracle after the resurrection (John 21:1-4). Another example is the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman (Luke 7:36-38; John 12:1-8). The words used are very similar but Luke said that the anointing was done by a prostitute in the house of a Pharisee while John said it was done by Mary, a close friend of Jesus, in her own house. Obviously the stories reached the evangelists either detached from their original setting or distorted by the oral transmission. All these point to an allied source of oral transmission for Luke and John.23
EPISODES 1. There was a second Judas among the twelve. 2. The betrayal was Satans entry into Judas Iscariot. 3. The slave lost his right ear in Gethsemane. 4. Pilate three times declared Jesus innocence. 5. The tomb that Jesus was laid in had never been used. 6. Two angels appeared on the morning of the resurrection. 7. Jesus first resurrection appearance was in Jerusalem. 8. The miraculous catch of fish. 9. Jesus anointed by a woman. 10. Jesus friendship with Mary and Martha. 11. The story of Lazarus. 12. Other disciples apart from the women who saw the tomb. LUKE 6:16 22:3 22:50 23:4,16,23 23:53 24:4 23:33-49 5:1-11 7:36-38 10:38-42 16:19-31 24:24 JOHN 14:22 13:27 18:10 18:38;19:4,6 19:41 20:12 20:19-23 21:1-4 12:1-8 11:1-44 11:44-47 20:3-10

Table 9.5: Similarities between John and Luke24

THE AUTHOR OF MARK

We have seen above that Matthew and Luke were heavily dependant on the gospel of Mark. Who was the author of the second gospel in the New Testament then? As we have seen in the previous chapter, Papias (c60 - c130), on the authority of one John the Presbyter, claimed that the author of this gospel was Mark, Peters interpreter. Tradition has further tied this Mark to the John Mark mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts:12:12;13:5,13;15:37,39), the epistles of Paul (Colossians 4:10;II Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24:1) and the first epistle of Peter (I Peter 5:13). We note in Acts that it was to Marks house in Jerusalem that Peter came after his escape from prison (Acts 12:12). Mark also joined Paul and Barnabas on their mission to Cyprus (Acts 12:25;13:15). Mark was also the center of disagreement between Paul and Barnabas; Paul not liking the fact that Mark deserted them in their mission in Cyprus earlier. Paul and Barnabas parted company with Mark going to Barnabas on another mission to Cyprus (Acts 15:37-39). We have seen from chapter 5 that I Peter was a late document and was not written by the apostle of that name. Yet by the time of its writing the tradition of the connection between Peter and John Mark was already so strong that Peter is made to call Mark his son (I Peter 5:13).25 A closer examination of the gospel, however, shows that the traditional attribution of authorship to John Mark is false. The gospel contains numerous mistakes about Palestinian geography and customs which a native such as John Mark would not have made.
23 24 25

Caird, Saint Luke: p20 Caird, Saint Luke: p20 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p212
260

As our first example, consider this passage:

Mark 7:31 (RSV)26 Then he [Jesus] returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis.

There is no hint of any prolonged tour in the narrative. The verse above suggests that Sidon is between the road from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. However, look at the map of Palestine in Figure 9.1 on the next page. The Sea of Galilee is to the southeast of Tyre while Sidon is to the north of the city. It is simply not possible to go through Sidon from Tyre to reach the Sea of Galilee. As David Barr, Professor of Religion at Wright State University remarked: the itinerary sketched in 7:31 would be a little like going from New York to Washington, D.C. by way of Boston! What is worse, it is a known historical fact that there was no direct road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee during the first century CE. There was, however, one from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. There are thus two geographical errors in the above passage. Firstly, the author obviously does not know the relative positions of Sidon, Tyre and the Sea of Galilee. Secondly, he does not know that there was no direct road between Sidon and the Sea of Galilee during the time of Jesus. Such a widely traveled native of Palestine such as

26

Modern translations such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV) the Good News Bible and even the fundamentalist New International Version (NIV) accurately translates the Greek as meaning Jesus went through Sidon. However older versions of the Bible such as the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) have the passage translated thus: Mark 7:31 (KJV, ASV, WEB) And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee... With this reading the geographical error is eliminated. Unfortunately this reading is not supported by textual evidence. We have seen earlier that the Greek text on which the King James Version was based, the Textus Receptus [or the Majority Text in the case of the NKJV], was inaccurate in many places and is no longer used today as the underlying Greek text for modern translations.
261

John Mark (as our New Testament sources assure us that he is) could not have made such a blatant mistake27 about Palestinian geography.28
S id o n D am ascus P H O E N E C IA Tyre A B IL E N E

M e d ite rra n e a n Sea C h o r a z in C a pernau m C ana M a g d a la

C a e s e re a P h ilip p i

N a z a re th

B e t h s a id a J u liu s Sea of G a l ile e T E T R A C

G A L IL E E
C ae s are a

HY OF P H IL IP

S A M A R IA
P e lla G e ra s a

PERAEA
J a m n ia E m m aus J e r u s a le m B e t h le h e m J e ric h o Q u m ran B e th a n y

JU D A E A
Dead Sea M asada

50 k i lo m e t e r s

ID U M E A

Figure 9.1: Palestine during the time of Jesus Another mistake occurred in the episode on the healing of the demoniac. This incident occurred in the region of the Gerasenes, or Gerasa. Mark 5:1 makes Jesus
27

28

Attempts by fundamentalists to explain this difficulty amount to no more than arguing from authority. One example is Lee Strobels fundamentalist bestseller The Case for Christ. In recounting his interview with John McRay (introduced with a PhD next to his name!), when the issue of Mark 7:31 was raised, all Strobel could muster to defend Biblical inerrancy here was simply to note that McRay pulled a Greek version of Mark off his shelf and opened large maps of ancient Palestine and then: Reading the text in the original language, taking into accounts the mountainous terrain and probable roads in the region...McRay traced a logical route on the map corresponding precisely with Marks description. When everything is put into the appropriate context, he concluded, theres no problem with Marks account. [Strobel, The Case for Christ: p134] And thats it! Without explaining how the route was logical and exactly what Greek text McRay read, this is supposed to convince readers that the problem is resolved! Needless to say this argument fails to convince skeptics. Nineham, Saint Mark: p203 Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p34 Barr, New Testament Story: p240
262

cross the Sea of Galilee to reach Gerasa, implying that Gerasa was a city close to the lake:
Mark 5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes.

Similarly in Mark 5:13 Jesus allowed the demons to leave the man and enter the herd of pigs nearby which then rushed headlong through a precipice into the lake:

263

Mark 5:13 At once Jesus gave them permission. The unclean spirits came out and entered into the pigs. The herd of about two thousand rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and they were drowned in the sea.

From these verses it is obvious that Mark meant Gerasa to be a town situated near the Sea of Galilee. However, look at the map in Figure 9.1 again. Gerasa is more than thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee!! There is not even a hint of any lake nearby.29 As the scholars of the Jesus Seminar so deliciously remarked:
Gerasa is located approximately thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, not exactly a convenient location for the drowning of the pigs. Matthew relocates the demoniac to Gadara, which is only six miles from the lakeshore. Later scribes tried other remedies to accommodate the pigs.30

Again such a basic mistake in Palestinian geography could not have been committed by a well-traveled native such as John Mark.31 Enough geography!32 Let us look at the mistakes in the second gospel about Jewish customs. Given below is an excerpt from Mark where Jesus is quoted as
29

30 31

32

Again fundamentalists have tried to rescue this. They point to an archaeological find. The ruins of a small town called Khersa (or Kursa or Kersa) , on the east coast of the Sea of Galilee, which according to Craig Blomberg (quoted in Strobels Case for Christ: p60) could be the origin of the use of the name Gerasa. This explanation has two problems. Firstly there are no cliffs overhanging the lake in this small town! This would be required for the pigs to jump down from. Secondly as there was a town called Gerasa during the time of Jesus, Marks use of this term, even if he had meant Khursa, would still imply that he was ignorant of Palestinian geography. [Nineham, Saint Mark: p153] Funk, et.al. The Acts of Jesus: p79 Nineham, Saint Mark: p266 Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p34 For those of you that need more of this, there are a few further examples of geographical errors in Mark:

Mark 8:22-26: The pericopae of the healing of the blind man was mentioned by Mark to have occurred at Bethsaida, which he referred to as a village. But it is well known that Bethsaida during the time of Jesus was a large and prosperous town. [Nineham, Saint Mark: p219] Mark 10:1: Jesus is supposed to have gone from Capernaum to the territory of Judea and across the Jordan river. As the reader can see by looking at the map in figure 6.1, the statement by Mark is geographically problematic. Firstly, none of Judea is to the east of Jordan (which would be what across the Jordan from Capernaum would mean). Secondly, to get from Capernaum to Judea, Jesus would have had to cross the Jordan twice (avoiding the traditionally antagonistic Samaritans) or not at all (directly southwards through Samaria). The passage implies a single crossing, leading him nowhere. [Funk, et.al. The Acts of Jesus: p111; Nineham, Saint Mark: p63] Mark 11:1: The passage has Jesus traveling from Jericho (Mark 10:46) via Bethpage and Bethany when it should have been in reverse order. We treat this particular error in more detail in chapter 14.
264

making some pronouncements on divorce:

Mark 10:11-12 He [Jesus] said to them, Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.

Jesus last sentence implies that women had the right to divorce her husband. But according to Jewish law a woman had no right of divorce whatsoever.33 In Roman law, of course, a woman had that right. The author of Mark had simply and mistakenly assumed that this is so for Jewish law as well. Again the author of Mark shows an ignorance of the conditions of Palestine which is really impossible for a native of the country to make.34 Another example of Marks ignorance is from the explanation he included for his readers regarding ritual cleansing:
Mark 7:3-4 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, dont eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. They dont eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.

This passage by Mark has been the subject of considerable debate among Jewish and Christian scholars. Jewish scholars have pointed out, based on the evidence of the Talmuds, that the washing of hands before meals was obligatory only on priests and not on lay people like the Pharisees and scribes. While it may be possible that some, or even many, Pharisees submitted to this ritual voluntarily, it is certainly cannot be said that all the Jews were following this. Thus Mark had made a mistake in generalizing a custom that was simply not practiced by all during the time of Jesus.35 The above errors in Palestinian geography and Jewish customs should rule out John Mark as the author of Mark. The evidence also rules out Papias story of the authors close relation with Peter and that he wrote down what Peter said. Peter could hardly have made the mistakes we have seen above. In short, like so many books in the Bible, we do not know the identity of the author of Mark. As early as Papias time (early second century) the real author was no longer known. Of course, as we mentioned in the previous chapter, the author could have been named Mark, as it was an exceedingly common name in those days. But we know nothing of him.36 If the author of Mark was neither an eyewitness nor a follower of an eyewitness, how did he get his material? The structure of the gospel reveals to us how he got this. With a few exceptions, the episodes in Mark seem to be completely independent units. In Mark the different episodes are attached together by link passages that are
33
34

35 36

It is pointless to say that Jesus was instituting divorce for women, as his whole pronouncement is one that is geared against divorce in general. Nineham, Saint Mark: p266 Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p34 Nineham, Saint Mark: p193 Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament: p97 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p213
265

normally one or two sentences long. As an example of this, let us look at chapter three of this gospel which contains five separate episodes.
Link Passages Mark 3:1 He entered again into the synagogue Mark 3:7 Jesus withdrew to the sea Mark 3:13 He went up into the mountain Mark 3:19b He came into a house Mark 3:31 His mother and his brothers came Episodes Mark 3:2-6 [Healing of the shriveled hand] Mark 3:8-12 [Healing of the multitudes] Mark 3:14-19a [Appointment of the 12 apostles] Mark 3:20-30 [Answering the scribes] Mark 3:31-35 [Renunciation of his family]

Table 9:6 Isolated Episodes in Mark 3 The one noticeable thing from a reading of Mark 3 is how isolated from each other the episodes were. The link passages He enteredthe synagogue, he withdrew to the lake, he went up the mountain etc., mean that there is no organic connection between one episode and another. Jesus could, after all, withdrew to the lake and then entered the synagogue later. The order of the episodes could easily be interchanged without doing any damage to the narrative as a whole. There is no organic connection between the separate incidents. They are almost like snapshots placed side by side in a photo album. This very strongly suggests that the stories relating to Jesus came to Mark in isolated anecdotes from separate sources. Where could these stories come from? It is very probable that most of these stories were circulated orally among the followers of Jesus. Some of the episodes were probably even used in the worship of the early Christians and were written down earlier. The gospel of Mark therefore is, more likely than not, the compilation of the early Christian community tradition about Jesus.37 We have demonstrated that both Matthew and Luke copied extensively from Mark. We have also shown that the author of Mark displayed ignorance of Palestinian geography and culture that rule out the author being a native of that country. We have also shown that the mistakes committed in Mark were very unlikely to have come from Peter, as it would have been if the tradition that Peter was the direct source behind this gospel was correct. We can conclude that the author is neither an eyewitness, nor a native of Palestine nor even a close acquaintance of an apostle. He was at least three times removed from the original eyewitnesses (i.e. eyewitnesses - oral tradition - written sources gospel of Mark).

37

Nineham, Saint Mark: p27-28

266

THE AUTHOR OF MATTHEW

Our finding that the author of the second gospel was not Mark, the interpreter for Peter, has immediate implications for the authorship of Matthew. We have already shown earlier that the gospel of Matthew is an anonymous work. Nowhere in the gospel does the author identify himself. As we have seen from the previous chapter, Papias witness cannot be used to claim that the name Matthew was already attached to the first gospel by 130 and that the first unambiguous attribution of its authorship to the apostle Matthew cannot be traced earlier than Irenaeus in 180. Today it is considered a settled issue among critical historical scholars that author of the first gospel, whoever he was, was definitely not the apostle Matthew.38 (For ease of reference we will continue to refer to this anonymous author of the third gospel as Matthew.) Let us review the reasons for this.

Matthews Use of Mark

The most important issue is in Matthews use of Mark. We have demonstrated above that Matthew copied extensively from the second gospel in the canon. We have also shown that the author of the gospel of Mark was neither an eyewitness, nor a native of Palestine nor even a close acquaintance of an apostle. Thus the reliance of a supposed eyewitness (the apostle Matthew) on the accounts of a non-eyewitness (the anonymous author of Mark) at least three times removed from the original eyewitnesses is, in the words of Raymond E. Brown, a conservative Catholic theologian, simply implausible.39 The changes in details that Matthew made of Mark are not those that an eyewitness would make. The changes betray an author with a theological agenda. As J.C. Fenton noted in his commentary on Matthew:
[A] study of Matthews use of his sources does not show us a man correcting one source from first hand knowledge of events. In the author of this Gospel, we have an editor, an arranger of material, rather than someone who is revising in the light of accurate historical information.40
38

39

40

Barr, New Testament Story: p277 Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p142 Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: p210-211 Ehrmann, The New Testament: p84 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p120-121 Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?: p162 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p238-240 Parmalee, Guidebook to the Bible: p103 Schenelle, The New Testament Writings: p219-220 Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p34 Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: p210-211 Ehrmann, The New Testament: p84 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p120-121 Schenelle, The New Testament Writings: p219-220 Fenton, Saint Matthew: p14
267

Let us take a few examples here. The most obvious is in the call to discipleship of Matthew.
Mark 2:14-15 (Luke 5:27-29) As he passed by, he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. It happened, that he was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many, and they followed him. Matthew 9:9-10 As Jesus passed by from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax collection office. He said to him, Follow me. He got up and followed him. It happened as he sat in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

Note that the only change is the name of the person from Levi to Matthew. If the gospel of Matthew really was written by the apostle of that name, one would expect a vivid eyewitness account of his own personal call to discipleship. Yet, all we have is a slavish and wooden word-for-word copying of Mark. This is, according to Bart Ehrman, difficult to believe if the author was actually Matthew.41 Furthermore many of the actual changes the author of Matthew made to the accounts in Mark is done not for providing a more vivid eyewitness account but done in order to show that the events in the life of Jesus fulfill prophecy. Let us look at a couple of examples. In the episode on the triumphal entry, Mark (11:1-11) [also Luke 19:29-35 and John 12:12-16] had Jesus entering Jerusalem riding on a young donkey. Matthew (21:1-7) had Jesus perform the impossible task of sitting on two donkeys! This, of course, cannot be an eyewitness account. The change was made because the author of this gospel misunderstood Zechariah 9:9 to mean that Jesus had to ride in on two donkeys.42 Similarly in the crucifixion scene, his changing Marks (15:23) myrrh to gall (Matthew 27:34) was clearly done to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy (Psalm 69:21).43 Another important piece of evidence is the case of the story of John the Baptists martyrdom. The story is told in Mark 6:17-30 but retroactively. This can be seen from Mark 6:14-16 where Herod feared that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead. The story that followed this retroactive tale was the feeding of the 5,000 (Mark 6:31-44) which chronologically follows Herods hearing about Jesus (Mark 6:14). Matthews fondness for adding connective links between the individual episodes provided in Mark led him to make a mistake here. Although he copied Marks remark about Herod having already killed John (Matthew 14:2), he did not notice that in Mark the feeding of the 5,000 did not take place immediately after John was buried, but later than that and therefore erroneously added the connecting link Now when Jesus heard this [about the burial of John], he withdrew from there in a boat to a lonely place apart. (Matthew 14:13). This was the beginning of the feeding of the
41 42

43

Ehrmann, The New Testament: p84 We will discuss this alleged acrobatic feat of Jesus sitting simultaneously on two donkeys in chapter 14. Fenton, Saint Matthew: p18
268

5,000 in Mark. Any eyewitness would never have made such a mistake. But a noneyewitness hurriedly copying his source certainly could!44

The Form, Content and Structure

Many other details in the gospels exclude the possibility that its author was the apostle Matthew. Both the Greek literary style and the gospels use of earlier Greek sources (Mark and Q) means that the gospel was originally written in Greek; something unlikely to have come from a Palestinian Jew like Matthew.45 As many scholars have pointed out the structural form of the gospel is systematic and artificial. Matthew had essentially inserted five chunks of sayings materials (Matthew Chapters: 5-7; 9-10; 13; 18; 23-25), mostly from Q, into the Markan narrative. Such a structure is non-biographical and weighs against the gospel being the work of an eyewitness.46 The theology in Matthew is such that would be relevant only to Christians living around the turn of the first century. For instance his emphasis on church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20) does not make sense within the context of the times of Jesus. This makes sense only at a time when the church was more fully developed.47

Conclusion on the Authorship of Matthew

The first gospel in the canon could not have been written by the apostle Matthew because: It relied heavily on the work of a non-eyewitness (Mark). The changes it made to the accounts in Mark are not what one would expect from an eyewitness. It was written in Greek and relied on Greek sources (Mark and Q) Its structure is artificial and speaks against it being autobiographical. Its theology is more suited to the situation facing the church around 80-100 CE.

44 45

46

47

Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p107 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: p316-318 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p121 Sanders & Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: p10 Ehrmann, The New Testament: p253 Fenton, Saint Matthew: p15 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p106-107, 121 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p121 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p242
269

THE AUTHOR OF LUKE-ACTS

It is generally accepted by most scholars that the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person. We will thus be searching for the identity of the author by looking at the evidence in both the gospel of Luke and Acts. We saw from chapter 8 that it was only in the year 180 that the gospel of Luke was referred to by name by Irenaeus. It was also Irenaeus who first guessed that Luke was the author based on the we-passages found in Acts and linking it with three verses in the Pauline epistles that mentioned a Luke who was a physician and Pauls travel companion. There are, of course, problems with this traditional attribution. It boils down to three separate issues: That Paul had a constant traveling companion named Luke. That Acts shows evidence of being written by a close companion of Paul (whoever he or she is). That the we-passages prove the case that what we have is the eyewitness accounts of a traveling companion.

We will look at these three issues in order.

Luke as Pauls Constant Traveling Companion

Luke was referred to in three verses in the Pauline corpus. These are:
Colossians 4:10-14 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, greets you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you received commandments, if he comes to you, receive him), and Jesus who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These are my only fellow workers for the Kingdom of God, men who have been a comfort to me. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, salutes you, always striving for you in his prayers, that you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I testify about him, that he has great zeal for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for those in Hierapolis. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you. II Timothy 4:10-11 Demas left me, having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. Philemon 1:23-24 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

Note that everything that is normally mentioned about Luke is given in these three passages. The fact that he was a Gentile is derived from the fact that in Colossians Luke was named after the men who are of circumcision were introduced: implying
270

that Epaphras, Luke and Demas were therefore Gentiles. We are also told there that he was a physician. In II Timothy, which is set during Pauls imprisonment in Rome (II Timothy 1:16-17), we are told that only Luke is with Paul. In other words we are told that he was with him till (near) the end. In Philemon, we are simply introduced to Luke as a fellow worker of Paul.48 However the derivation of information about Luke from these Pauline epistles is of dubious value. II Timothy is almost universally regarded by critical-historical scholars as a pseudepigrapha or, to put in bluntly, a forgery: a document written by someone else pretending to be Paul.49 Similarly, a substantial majority of scholars also think that Colossians is pseudepigraphical.50 Thus the only certain information we have about Luke is that of Philemon 1:2324. Here all we know is that Paul referred to Luke as a fellow worker. We do not know if he was a Gentile, or that he was a physician or that he traveled frequently with Paul. All these additional facts are derivable only from Colossians and II Timothy, and since these are forgeries, we are in no position to know how reliable they are as far as Pauls companions were concerned.51 Thus the name Luke is only one of the names of the many people who were, either occasionally or often, with Paul during some of his missionary work. There is no way to single out that name as the companion who wrote Luke-Acts.

The Author of Luke-Acts as a Traveling Companion of Paul

Whatever the case may be with regards to the name or identity of the author, can it at least be concluded that the author must have been a companion of Paul? No. A number of factual errors in Acts which weigh heavily against the author being a companion of Paul:52 There are a number of serious discrepancies in the portrayal of Paul in Acts and what we can derive from his authentic epistles. Here we will give a summary of some of the major points: o Number of trips Paul made to Jerusalem Acts say five, Paul noted only three (Acts 9, 11, 15, 18:22, 21 versus Galatians 1:18, 2:1 and the (planned) visit to Jerusalem in Romans: 15:25). Pauls first meeting with the apostles

o
48

49 50

51

52

Ehrmann, The New Testament: p138 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p180-184 Schnelle: The New Testament Writings: p240-242 See chapter 5. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: p610, 675 Ehrmann, The New Testament: p138 Schnelle, The New Testament Writings: p240-242 Akenson, Saint Saul: p135-136 Ehrmann, The New Testament: p138 Ehrmann, The New Testament.: p262-265 Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament: p180-184 Schnelle, The New Testament Writings: p240-242
271

Paul mentioned that he only visited the apostles in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:16-19 ) but the narrative in Acts showed that he went to Jerusalem a short time after his conversion. (Acts 9:1-26) Paul in Jerusalem According to Acts, Paul took an active part in the execution of Stephen in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58, 8:3) where he would certainly have been seen by at least some Christians there. Yet Paul in Galatians 1:22 mentioned that when he visited Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion he was still unknown by sight to the Churches of Judea. Paul as a miracle worker Acts portrayed Paul as a miracle-worker (Acts 13:6-12; 14:8-10; 20:72). Yet Pauls epistle do not contain much claim of miracle working and in the rare case where it is raised, it seems to be mentioned in a clearly defensive tone (II Corinthians 12:1-12) - implying that the criticism of his opponents was that his miracles were not impressive. Paul as an outstanding orator In Acts Paul is portrayed as an outstanding orator able to command the attention of philosophers, unruly crowds and Roman prosecutors alike. (Acts 17:22-31 21:40-22:21; 24:1-21) Yet Paul admitted that he had been criticized of having weak bodily present whose speech making skills is of no account (II Corinthians 10:10). Paul as an apostle Paul presented himself as an apostle (I Corinthians 9:1-3; Galatians 2:8). Acts give the criteria to be an apostle to include being one of the twelve and having eaten and drunk with the risen Jesus (Acts 1:21-25; 10:41) - thus leaving Paul out. Pauls attitude towards the law Acts portrayed Paul as a loyal and practicing Jew. (e.g. Acts 16:1-3; 16:4; 18:18;18:21, 20:16) Yet in his epistles Pauls position on the law is more complicated (I Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 2:1-6, 11-14; 2:21, 5:4 Philippians 3:5-9)

In Acts 15:2-21 James was portrayed as the mediator between Paul and the Pharisees but in Pauls own account (Galatians 2:9) James was placed squarely on the side which opposes Paul.

Acts 10:1-11:18 stated that the mission to the Gentiles was started by Peter, yet in Galatians 2:1-10 Paul is called to defend his mission to the Gentiles against the three pillars (James, John and Peter). Why would he have to defend a mission to the Gentiles when Peter had already started it? These mistakes rule out the possibility that the author personally knew the apostle to the Gentiles.

272

The We-Passages in Acts

Now if the author of Luke-Acts was not a companion of Paul how do we explain the so-called we-passages (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15, 21:1-8 and 27:1-28:16)? Let us begin by taking a look at one such passage:
Acts 20:37-21:1 They all wept a lot, and fell on Pauls neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all because of the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him to the ship. When it happened that we had parted from them and had set sail, we came with a straight course to Cos, and the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara.

Probably desensitized by biblical narratives, we no longer notice how odd the above passage actually is. The third person singular (Paul, he) shifts suddenly and without warning into a first person plural (we), the moment the sea voyage starts. One would expect, perhaps something more natural like, Paul came to the ship and I, with the other brothers, were waiting for him and we set sail. Instead the change happens in midstream, as it were. 53 As Stanley E. Porter, Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College, admits:
An admitted difficulty for any analysis of the book of Acts, it must be conceded, is that there is apparently no significant parallel yet found in any major Greek historian, including earlier classical authors and the later Oxyrhynchus historian, that evidences a similar use of anonymous first person plural embedded within a third person narrative.54 [Emphasis added]

This means that far from proving that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul, the way in which the we-passages are embedded within Acts is actually quite puzzling. There is something artificial about the whole construct. Note that the we-passages in Acts are limited only to stories which involve travel by sea. It would indeed be strange if the author was only present during sea voyages and nowhere else in Pauls ministry. In an important paper, Vernon Robbins55 showed that there was a literary convention at the time Acts was written. Although, in general, historiographical writing was done in an informal third person (i.e. he, they, Paul etc), this changed when scenes relating to sea voyages were involved. With examples from Mediterranean literature (Roman and Greek) around the time of the writing of LukeActs, Robbins showed that the we-passages is a stylistic device designed to add vividness and excitement to the account of sea voyages.

53 54 55

Ehrmann, The New Testament: p138-139 Porter, Paul in Acts: p23-24 Vernon Robbins, By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages, Perspective in Luke-Acts, Charles Talbert (ed) 1978
273

One of the examples Robbins amassed is the tale of The Voyage of Hanno the Carthaginian (c third or second cent BCE). Note how the narration starts in the third person and then shifts abruptly to the first person plural when the sea voyage starts:
The Carthaginians decided that Hanno should go past the Pillars and found Carthaginian cities. He set sail with sixty pentekontas (fifty-oared ships) carrying thirty thousand men and women with provisions and other necessities. After passing the Pillars of Hercules and sailing for two days beyond them we founded the first city, which was named Thymiaterion.56

Thus the use of the first person plural may mean the author of the narrative was present during the events described but it could also equally mean that he was not.57 For our purposes here, we can say that the we in the we-passages can no longer be straightforwardly used as evidence that the author was a travel companion of Paul.58 Of course if the author was merely attempting to follow a literary convention, it remains to be explained why not all the accounts of sea voyages in Luke-Acts are in the first person plural (e.g. Acts 13:13). Marrianne Bonz, managing editor of Harvard Theological Review, has argued in her book The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and the Ancient Epic that the we-passages serves an important rhetorical function. They begin only after the Jerusalem council (15:22-29) where, significantly, full equality was given to Gentiles. The whole of Acts now move away from a focus on Jerusalem and the Jewish Christian church towards the Gentile mission. As Bonz continues:
Once introduced the we group serves as a peripheral or vicarious participant in all of the elements of Pauls active ministry: proclamation [e.g. Acts 16:13], the breaking of bread [Acts 20:7] and its salvific results - even acceptance by James and the body of Jerusalem elders [Acts 21:17-18]. Most importantly the group accompanies Paul to Rome [Acts 28:16], the dramatic climax of the narrative journey and the geographical and theological symbol of the fulfillment of the missionary prophecy. The we passages do not represent historical, eyewitness accounts...the we references serve as a rhetorical shorthand for the Pauline Christians - those who are
56

57

58

Text from Wilfred Schoffs The Periplus of Hanno 1912 (www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/hanno-voyage.htm accessed on May 5, 2003) Predictably, Vernon Robbins paper has been criticized quite extensively by conservative theologians. Their criticisms have normally centered on the claim that the parallels presented by Robbins are somewhat inexact (Joseph Fitzmeyer) or not similar enough (Stanley E. Porter). Yet as we see in Porters admission above, there exist no parallel at all with any historiographical work of an anonymous eyewitness who shifts from third person to first person singular without explanation. It is important to note that Fitzmeyer, despite his criticism, did not dismiss the existence of such a literary convention altogether. [Ref: Porter, Paul in Acts: p23-24, Powell, What are they saying about Acts?: p34] Barr, New Testament Story: p324 Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament: p230-231 Schenelle, The New Testament Writings: p267-268 Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus: p146-149
274

vicariously privy to Pauls example and who, as heirs to his legacy, have been called by him to continue his unfinished mission. They are Lukes intended audience, whose participation of the ongoing drama of Gods salvation plan is signaled by the words of the Lukan prologue: concerning the events that have been fulfilled among us. [Luke 1:1]59 [Verses from Luke and Acts added - PT]

Vernon Robbins reached more or less the same conclusion in his paper. Thus we can discern the reasons why we was used in those passages in Acts. Firstly, by using a literary convention it adds vividness to the picture and secondly, since the we meant, like us in Luke 1:1, the Gentile Christians, the we function as a metaphor representing Gentile Christians in their spiritual journey. Therefore the presence of the we-passages in Acts cannot be used against the evidence we have seen earlier that the author of Acts could not have been a companion of Paul.

Conclusion on the Authorship of Luke-Acts

The evidence speaks against Luke as the author of Luke-Acts: A Luke is referenced only once in the genuine Pauline epistles, and all we know of him is that he was a fellow worker of Paul. Every other bit of information about him: that he was a Gentile, a physician and a constant companion of Paul came from the two spurious epistles and cannot be confidently counted as historical. The mistakes in historical events and discrepancies of the portrayal of Paul (when compared to the Pauline epistles) specifically excludes a companion of Paul (whoever he may be) as the author of Luke-Acts. The we-passages do not imply the writing of an eyewitness. Its form (switching from third person to first person plural) is puzzling and there is no known historical parallel outside the genre of sea-voyage narratives. The best explanation is that it was used as a rhetorical shorthand for all Gentile Christians.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

The gospel of John differs from the synoptics in many substantial ways. It recounts stories about Jesus that does not appear in the other three. Its whole framework of Jesus ministry also differs substantially from the synoptics. In the synoptics, Jesus ministry begins only after John the Baptist was imprisoned (Mark 1:14; Matthew 4:12), John showed the two prophets preaching together (John 3:24). While the synoptics timetable of Jesus ministry can be fitted into a single year, John makes the ministry last for three years (according to the fourth gospel, Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples thrice: John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). The synoptics identified Galilee as the main location of Jesus ministry. John placed Jerusalem as the principle location. The synoptics recorded only a single trip to Jerusalem by Jesus
59

Bonz, The Past as Legacy: p173

275

while John had him going to the holy city five times (John 2:13; 5:1; 7:10; 10:22; 12:1).60 Even the figure of Jesus presented in John is different, and indeed irreconcilable, with that presented in the synoptics. The figure of Jesus presented in John does not even sound like a Jew as, indeed, historically he was. The Jewish scholar, Hyam Maccoby (b.1924) sums this up very nicely:
In the synoptics account Jesus is still a recognizably Jewish figure, sparing in words and human and concrete in approach; in John, Jesus has become a Greek: voluble, full of abstractions, mystical.61

Not only is Jesus presented in the gospel of John as a non-Jew, he is even recognizably anti-Jewish. In his debates with the Jews he called them the sons of the devil (John 8:43) and speaks of Jewish Law as your Law as though it wasnt his. (John 8:17)62 His method of preaching is also different. Whereas in the synoptics he preaches in parables and in short compact sayings, in John the method is with long discourses. If one were to read only the gospel of John one would never guess that the parable was a common method in Jesus teachings (John 20:2-6 being a rare example).63 In the synoptics we find that Jesus kept his messiahship a secret at the beginning only to reveal it after Peters confession at Ceasarea Phillipi (Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16: 13-20; Luke 9:18-21) but in John his special status is made known almost from the beginning. In John, Jesus calls himself The resurrection and the life, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12). There is no such utterance attributed to Jesus in the synoptics.64 The chronological order in the fourth gospel is irreconcilable with that given in the synoptics. One example is an incident that is given in all four gospels: the Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:12-19; Matthew 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:12-22). The story involves Jesus and the merchants and moneychangers outside the temple. The merchants actually serve a useful function for the Jewish temple worship. Jewish Law specified that, in certain cases, a worshipper could bring an offering of doves (Leviticus 12:8; 14:22). The moneychangers provide Jewish pilgrims from foreign lands clean money for payment of the temple tax (Exodus 30:13ff). Jesus was, for some reason, angry at these merchants and called them robbers (Mark 11:17). John describes the subsequent happening:

60

61 62 63

64

Guignebert, Jesus: p27 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p271 Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p245-246 Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p42 Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church: p275 Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament: p177 Davidson & Leaney, Biblical Criticism: p266 Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p280
276

John 2: 15-16 He [Jesus] made a whip of cords, and threw all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers money, and overthrew their tables. To those who sold the doves, he said, Take these things out of here! Dont make my Fathers house a marketplace!

This event must have caused quite a commotion and could not have failed to produce unpleasant consequences for the Galilean prophet. In the synoptics, Jesus was dead within a week of the incident. John incomprehensibly placed this event in the beginning of Jesus ministry; and made him preach for another three years with impunity!65 That he makes use of traditional material cannot be denied: the parallel episodes found in both John and Luke and the story of the cleansing of the Temple above, among others, should be sufficient to prove this. But John did not faithfully transmit these traditional stories but used them to weave his own theology. Take for instance this saying of Jesus:
John 8:12 Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.

I ask the reader imagine himself being present in this scene where the Galilean prophet was uttering this statement about himself. The scene would be unbelievable, and the prophet will look like one on the verge of insanity. The sayings put into the mouth of Jesus by John are too unrealistic for it to have ever been uttered. G.A. Wells showed how these statements could have been invented by John. There is some traditional material about discipleship, typified by Peters statement that he has left everything to follow Jesus. (Mark 10:28). There is also another passage from the Old Testament:
Isaiah 9:2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined.

Thus John used fragments from tradition and scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) and weaved them together with his own theological imagination.66 In summary Johns material differs substantially from the synoptics and all the evidence points to his changing his sources freely with none of the (relative) restraint we see in the synoptics. As Marcello Craveri (b.1914) aptly puts it:
The fourth gospel is of exceedingly little worth as a historical document and the Christian theologians themselves describe it as pneumatic-that is, spiritualGospel because it can be accepted only as a philosophical Christological dissertation.67

65 66 67

Guignebert, Jesus: p418 Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus: p130 Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p312
277

We have discussed the gospel of John at considerable length. It is now time to pause a little and consider the implications of our findings. In the synoptics we note that Mark very probably depended on traditional material. Both Luke and Matthew, while allowing themselves some artistic and theological license, generally tried to preserve the witness of their sources, be it Mark or Q. We do not find this in John. He uses the traditional material rather freely and disagrees on many points with the synoptics. Thus it should be concluded here, as do the majority of critical historical scholars, 68 that John, as an historical source for the life of Jesus, is the least reliable of the four gospels. In the discussions of the historical evidence for Jesus in this book John will be used rather sparingly and when he is indeed quoted a higher level of skepticism must be applied to it.

THE AUTHOR OF JOHN

Who was the author of John? Tradition has it that it was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, who is identified with the beloved disciple mentioned on at least four occasions in the gospel (John 13:23-25; 19:26f, 20:2-8 and 21:7f). This would make the gospel an eyewitness account. However several considerations show that this attribution is extremely improbable. Firstly it is important to note that nowhere in the 20 chapters of the gospel is the author identified with anyone named John. Secondly the identity of John, son of Zebedee with the person referred to as the beloved disciple is based primarily on parallel passages in the synoptics. For instance it is argued that John is depicted as Peters companion in Acts (Acts 1:13; 3:1-4; 3:11; 4:13; 4:19; 8:14), the beloved disciple also appears with Peter in the fourth gospel (John 13:23-25; 20:2-8, 21:21-23 and, possibly, 18:15f). 69 Yet appealing to parallel passages in the synoptics cuts both ways. For there are many parallel scenes in the synoptics in which the beloved disciple is not mentioned when we would have expected him to be, given the importance of his role depicted in the fourth gospel. These episodes are the last supper, the crucifixion and the empty tomb. In the last supper Peter is made to ask the beloved disciple to inquire from Jesus who the traitor was after Jesus reveled that it will be one of the twelve (John 13:18-26). The incident, as described in the other gospels had the disciples inquiring among themselves who the betrayer is (Mark 14:19; Matthew 26:22; Luke 22:23). In the scene of the crucifixion, Jesus is said to have handed his mother to the care of the beloved disciple (John 19:25-27). This episode is nowhere to be found in any of the synoptics account of the crucifixion. Indeed we are explicitly told by Mark that all of them (Jesus disciples) deserted him and fled (Mark 14:50).
68

69

Ldemann, Jesus After 2000 Years: p416 Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus: p57, 72-73 John 18:15-16 mentioned an unnamed the other disciple, who was known to the chief priest who was with Peter outside the courtyard of the chief priest during the interrogation of Jesus. In the story of race to the empty tomb (John 20:2), the other disciple is identified as the one whom Jesus loved. However it is by no means clear that the other disciple at the empty tomb is to be identified with the other disciple at the courtyard of the high priest.
278

In the episode of the empty tomb, the beloved disciple is made to race Peter to the empty tomb and even outran him (John 20:3-5). Again nowhere in the synoptics do we find the beloved disciple or anybody apart from the women (and Peter in Luke 24:12) to have seen the empty tomb. This episode provides a clue as to how the stories concerning the beloved disciple are constructed. In the episode on the resurrection, Johns account is very similar to Lukes where Peter, alone, ran to the tomb after hearing the news from Mary Magdalene (Luke 24:12). The expression in John 20:3 was Peter went forth. The verb here is singular in Greek and seems to show that Johns traditional material only has Peter alone running to the tomb. But the evangelist clumsily adds and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. Far from being an eyewitness account, this shows that the character of the beloved disciple is merely an impromptu insertion by the author into his traditional source material.70 There is a passage in the fourth gospel that would also seem to exclude John, the son of Zebedee as the beloved disciple. Recall that sometimes the beloved disciple is also referred to as the other disciple and is never named (e.g. 21:21-23 and, possibly, 18:15f). If this indeed is an alternate designation, then the disciples who were present during the resurrection appearance at the Sea of Tiberias were given in John 21:2 as Peter, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee and two other disciples. Given the premise of not naming the beloved disciple, it is more probable that he was among the two other disciples than one of the sons of Zebedee. We should also note, for what it is worth, that Acts 4:13 mentioned John (with Peter) to be uneducated and ordinary which, according to Bart Ehrman, means that he was illiterate. 71 It is unlikely that John the son of Zebedee, an illiterate Galilean fisherman, could have produced such a theological work. Thirdly the gospel is anonymous for the first 20 chapters. It also seems probable that this chapter was the end of the original gospel, as the following verse testifies:
John 20:30-31 Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

This sounds very much like a concluding paragraph of the gospel. Prior to this point no claim is made that the beloved disciple himself wrote the gospel. Indeed one passage seems to explicitly rule him out as the direct author of the gospel:
John 19:35 He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, that you may believe.

70

71

Culpepper, John: p72-76 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament: p234-236 Marsh, Saint John: p23-24 Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus: p128-129 Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction: p.161
279

The beloved disciple was described earlier (John 19:26) as being the only disciple present at the crucifixion (besides the women), so it is reasonable to assume that he here refers to him. However the third person construction of the sentence more naturally means that, whoever this disciple is, his witness is being claimed for the gospel not his authorship. Chapter 21 restarts rather abruptly with: Afterwards Jesus appeared again... It is only here that the author is explicitly identified as the mysterious beloved disciple:
John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these things. We know that his witness is true.

The first person plural we in the above verse, as well as the abrupt beginning mentioned earlier, show that chapter 21 is definitely a later addition to the gospel. And it is also clear that the beloved disciple had died when this chapter was written, as we can surmise from this passage:
John 21:21-23 Peter seeing him, said to Jesus, Lord, what about this man? Jesus said to him, If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you? You follow me. This saying therefore went out among the brothers that this disciple wouldnt die. Yet Jesus didnt say to him that he wouldnt die, but, If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you?

The explanation provided in John 21:23 above only makes sense if the beloved disciple had already died when that passage was penned. Thus the claim that the beloved disciple wrote the gospel was made in a chapter that was definitely not written by him!72 Even if we have shown that the author was not John the son of Zebedee, what about the claim that it was written by an, albeit anonymous, eyewitness? This is unlikely in the extreme, as Udo Schnelle, Professor of New Testament at Halle, Germany noted:
The different way in which the life of Jesus is portrayed, the independent theology, the numerous special traditions and the thought world explicitly oriented to the post-Easter perspective point to the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel was not composed by an eyewitness of the life of Jesus. He was a theologian of the later period who, on the basis of comprehensive traditions, rethought the meaning of Jesus life, and interpreted and presented it in his own way.73

We can now summarize the evidence against identifying the author of the fourth gospel as John, the son of Zebedee:
72

73

Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: p369 Ehrman, The New Testament: p161 Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament:.: p234-236 Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings: p474
280

Nowhere in the gospel is the authors name given as John. The identification of the beloved disciple with John, the son of Zebedee is false. The very method used for this - parallel passages in the synoptics can be used to exclude the identification. There is no explicit claim, in the first 20 chapters, of any authorship by the beloved disciple whoever he was. The claim was made in chapter 21 was that of another hand and was penned after the death of the beloved disciple. The content of the fourth gospel explicitly excludes it as an eyewitness account.

The author of John, like that of the three gospels, is therefore anonymous. We can be reasonably certain that it was not John the apostle.

*****
We have looked at the internal evidence of gospel authorship. In each and every case we saw that the traditional attribution of these works to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is spurious. The authors are unknown to us. We do know however that they were not (otherwise anonymous) eyewitnesses and they recorded accounts that are a few times removed from the actual eyewitnesses.

281