Moore Perspective: Challenging the Integrity of the Canonical Gospels: A Response (Part 3 of 3)

Questions of Authorship¹

Whether divine guidance is conceded or not, human beings were involved in the production and transmission of the Gospels. On the “fundamentalist” end of the spectrum, as long as God is recognized as the primary author, human instrumentality is of little consequence. On the opposite end, the legitimacy of the biblical record can be more easily challenged if orthodox attributions are discredited.

Titular Evidence

The first four books of the NT are anonymous in the sense that the names of the authors do not appear in the respective texts. This does not mean, however, the original reading audiences were ignorant of who these authors were. There is no concrete evidence that any of the Gospels ever circulated without a title,² and the only extant appellations are ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ, ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ, ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ, and ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ, i.e., according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is consistently attested among surviving Greek manuscripts, versional evidence, and patristic citations. How likely is it that any of the Gospels would have been left unidentified, especially if they were meant to be passed around and read by a wide audience? There had to be some way to distinguish between them as they circulated.

Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160-220) was highly critical of the idea of a Gospel being published without its official designation (Adv. Marc. 4.2). There is no documented proof for the groundless assertion that the titles were not added until the second century. It is inconceivable that such significant writings would circulate anonymously for decades, or that the names of the real authors were lost and then replaced by fictitious monikers without any variations in subsequent years.³

Historical Attribution

Early and consistent testimony ascribes authorship of the First Gospel to the apostle Matthew Levi. The oldest surviving reference is from Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140), while others include Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160-220), Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339), and Jerome (ca. 347-420). No other name was ever appended to Matthew’s Gospel.

The invariable title of the Second Gospel is “According to Mark.” The earliest attestation is that of Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140), with comparable testimonies from Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165), the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160-180), Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160-220), and Jerome (ca. 347-420). No one from the early church ever denied this claim or proposed a different author.

Luke’s authorship of the Third Gospel is also affirmed very early and includes the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170), the Bodmer Papyrus XIV (ca. 200), Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160-180), and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339). Lukan attribution is unvarying.

The earliest extant reference to John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel is that of Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), whose testimony is based on the corroboration of Polycarp, a contemporary of the apostle John himself (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.14.3-8; 5.20.5-6; 20.4-8). Other testimonies include the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 181), Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 170-235), Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339). With the exception of the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.11.9) and Epiphanius (Haer. 51.3), no one seriously questioned the authorial role of John until 19th-century critical scholarship.

Unlikelihood of Pseudonymity

If the popular charge of pseudonymity is taken seriously, the names appended to the Synoptic Gospels are rather curious if not practically inexplicable. Matthew is the only one of the three that can be identified as an apostle and personal disciple of Jesus. Yet he is among the least prominent of the apostolic group. His name appears once in the account of Jesus’ initial call (Matt. 9:9) and elsewhere only in the collective listings of the apostles (Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Mark 3:18; Acts 1:13). He is listed seventh in Mark and Luke and eighth in Matthew and Acts. Always appearing before him are the names of Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, and Bartholomew. And as a former tax collector, there “was never a more unlikely candidate for the office of apostle …”⁴

Mark and Luke were neither apostles nor confirmed eyewitnesses. Both are relatively obscure figures in the NT. Mark has a tainted profile in Acts and is mentioned briefly only four times outside of Acts. Luke is mentioned by name only three times in the NT. Anyone wanting to falsely credit a Gospel to an authoritative witness had much more notable characters to choose from. There is no rational explanation for these ascriptions unless, of course, they are genuine. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not widely recognized because of their prominence in the biblical record but because of the documents unanimously ascribed to them in antiquity.

Conclusion

In many scholastic circles there appears to be a general aversion to accepting or even considering conventional authorial appellations.⁵ But alternative judgments based on conjectural argumentation, unwarranted assumptions, circular reasoning, and exceedingly complicated redaction and compilation theories manifest a strong appearance of grasping at straws. Authorial attribution plays an important role in how the respective Gospel accounts are viewed and interpreted.⁶

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

¹ This article is a revised version of K. L. Moore, “Authorship of the NT Gospels,” Moore Perspective (27 May 2012), <Link>.

² During the period approximating the composition of the NT documents, particularly before the widespread use of the codex, a work was typically identified by a tag on the outside of the scroll.

³ See D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 33-44; D. A. Caron and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 140-42; M. Hengel, Four Gospels 48-54; Studies in the Gospel of Mark 64-84; R. T. France, Matthew–Evangelist and Teacher 50-80.

⁴ William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew 1:329.

⁵ Paul Davidson makes it clear to his readers, “Please note that throughout this article, when I refer to the authors of the Gospels by name, it is an editorial convenience only, and not meant to imply that the names of their actual authors are known” (“Editorial Fatigue,” Is That in the Bible? [10 March 2015] <Web>).

⁶ See K. L. Moore, “Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 1),” Moore Perspective (11 March 2012), <Link>; and Part 2 (18 March 2012), <Link>.