Who authored the New Testament? When? These questions spawn intense debate. Can we know? Or are we stumbling in the dark squinting to discern shadows of an age long past? This article investigates these questions.
Surely, we can establish some level of confidence. There is a scholarly consensus that at least seven of Paul’s epistles are authentic written between fifteen and thirty years after the crucifixion. For Acts and the four gospels though, controversy abounds. Most agree that Mathew, Mark, and Luke (the synoptic gospels) were composed somewhere between 50 and 100 CE. But the majority of biblical experts prefer a date late in that range. Not all agree. John A. T. Robinson makes a compelling argument for early dating in his book Redating the New Testament . He writes, “For, much more than is generally recognized, the chronology of the New Testament rests on presuppositions rather than facts.”1
The datings of all these books are like a line of tipsy revelers walking home arm-in-arm; each is kept in position by the others, and none is firmly grounded. The whole series can lurch five years this way or that, and still not collide with a solid obstacle.2
A primary presupposition relates to Jesus’s temple prediction: “not one stone would be left upon another.”3
Jesus tells his disciples to flee to the mountains when they see the abomination of desolation.4 5 6 One of the charges against Jesus at his trial was a claim that he said he would destroy the temple.7 If the gospels were written after the temple destruction, one would expect more details to be included. The fall of Jerusalem, the horrors of the Roman conquest, and their implications are mysteriously absent from the gospels, Acts, and the epistles.
Jesus was not the only ancient writer to anticipate the destruction of the temple. It was a common theme. Another Jesus, the son of Ananias, wailed for seven years (from 62–69 CE) about the coming destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple.8 9 10 11
Dating the gospels after 70 CE leads to downplaying, explaining away, or simply ignoring a series of evidences. These are:
The last eight chapters of Acts describe events from Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem to his eventual arrival in Rome awaiting trial in about 62 CE. It never mentions what happens. Was Paul found guilty? Was he acquitted? The text doesn’t say. The ending of the book of Acts is odd to say the least. Tradition has it that Paul was subsequently released, continued his ministry, and then was eventually beheaded by the emperor Nero.12,13 14
Luke goes from the third person (they) to first person (we) starting with Acts 16. This indicates that the author represents himself as being an eyewitness to what occurs from then on. This would not be likely if Luke’s gospel were dated late.
Matthew’s gospel was written for the Jewish community. It’s focus on the temple institution doesn’t make sense if the temple and its sacrificial system were no longer active. Matthew’s focus on the Sadducees is also puzzling. Why so much emphasis on a group that ceased to exist and largely disappeared from subsequent historical writings?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke avoid saying who cut off the high priest servant’s ear during Jesus’s betrayal.15 16
Many scholars believe that because of the commonality of content, Luke and Matthew had access to the gospel of Mark.17 18
There is another twist to consider in this discussion. What if the gospel accounts (other than Luke) were not written at a single point in time? Suppose there was a proto-Matthew, proto-Mark, and a proto-John. Luke hints at this possibility.
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start, to write a well-ordered account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have a firm grasp of the words in which you have been instructed (Luke 1:1–4).
Eusebius, quoting Papias, further states that Matthew “wrote the logia in in the Hebrew language.”19
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.20
These quotes challenge the assumption that early church relied solely on oral tradition for the first thirty to fifty years after the crucifixion. Robinson’s book (cited above) agrees.21
Formation of stories and collections of sayings (thirties–forties +).
Proto gospels (forties–fifties +).
Synoptic gospels (fifties–sixties).
Gospel of John (fifty–sixty-five +).
In any case, it is certainly possible that the authors of the four gospels and acts either were eyewitnesses, or they received firsthand information from them.
Now let’s turn to the issue of authorship. Of course, if the four gospels were dated fifty or more years after the crucifixion, it is unlikely that the authors could be the ones to whom these gospels are ascribed. We’ve already dealt with this issue above. What are some other reasons why many scholars doubt the authorship of New Testament documents? The first is questioning whether early Jewish believers even could speak Greek, the language of the New Testament. This criticism would not apply to Luke and Mark who are generally acknowledged to be Greek speaking. There is some evidence that a proto-Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and later translated to Greek.22
The second reason for doubting New Testament authorship is literacy. I’ve encountered many statements as follows, “Poor lower-class fishermen from Galilee were very likely to be illiterate.” This statement overflows with assumptions. Fishing was a valued trade in Galilee. Those who engaged in it were no more likely to be lower-class and poor than modern New England fishermen. They were entrepreneurs who managed their businesses competently.
Another unjustified assumption concerns the definition of literacy. Today this means the ability to read and write. In the ancient world, reading was a very different skill from writing, and reading literacy was far more needed than what is typically assumed. For example, a garbage dump discovered near Oxyrhychus Egypt uncovered about a half million documents dated from 32 BCE to 640 CE. They contain all sorts of letters, records, wills, etc. They were meant to be read, not just by the elite and educated. In ancient Rome there were road signs and billboards containing various news items and decrees. Cemeteries contained poems and sometimes extensive obituaries. Rome even had a daily newspaper. There are some who claim that reading literacy in ancient Rome exceeded that of any time in history prior to the modern world.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s concede that the apostles could read. Did they have the ability to compose and write? Bart Ehrman, a leading skeptic says no; the skill to compose took years of study. However, even he concedes, “Virtually all of the problems with what I’ve been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition of the early Christian writings.”23
In these last few paragraphs, I’ve covered why I find arguments by skeptics regarding the apostle’s education and literacy to be unconvincing. An online article “Were Jesus, the Apostles, Early Christians Illiterate, Uneducated?” by Edward D. Andrews addresses this issue in far more detail.24
Finally, let’s consider the external evidence that is available. Church fathers from various geographic areas state that Matthew (a disciple), Mark (Peter’s scribe), Luke (a Physician accompanying Paul), and John (a disciple) were the actual authors.
Irenaeus, 175–185 CE, Against Heresies 3.1.1–2.
Tertullian, 197–220 CE, Against Marcion 4.2.1–2.
Papias, 110–140 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15–16.
Clement of Alexandria, 180–202 CE, Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13.
It comes down to whether we believe these early witnesses, despite some alleged flaws in their accounts. I admittedly have a bias. But unless there are compelling arguments otherwise, I trust the church fathers. They were much closer to the events and had other sources available to them than we have now some two–thousand years later.
To conclude, it may be possible that the gospels went through a series of edits leading to the versions we now have in our bibles. This being said, I see no compelling reason to doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the original authors.
Thanks for listening.
Footnotes
Robinson, Redating the New Testament , 6.
Farrer, The Revelation of St John the Divine , 37; Robinson, Redating the New Testament , 308
Matt 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6.
Matt 24:15–18; Mark 13:14–16; Luke 21:20–21.
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews , 6.316.
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews , 2.20.1.
Matt 26:61, 27:40; Mark 14:58, 15:29; Luke 21:6.
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews , 6.5.3.
Kohler, “Judas the Galilean”
Jewish Virtual Library, “The Maccabees/Hasmoneans: History and Overview.”
Britannica, “Battle of Carthage.”
Clement 5:1–7.
Foxe, Book of Martyrs , Ch. 1.
Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2.
Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50.
John 18:10.
Britannica, “The Synoptic problem.”
Muratorian Fragment, verses 13–16.65.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History , 3.39, verses 15–16.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies , 3.1.19.
Robinson, Redating the New Testament , 99, 275.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies , 3.1 [175-185 CE]; Jerome, On Illustrious Men [382 CE].
Ehrman, Forged , 134.
Andrews, Were Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Christians Illiterate, Uneducated”
Dan Harvey, author of “Experiencing the Apocalypse” and “Wrestling with Faith,”
https://secondlooknow.com/
Brother, as always, you killed it! I was going through withdrawal without your entries! One note on John. His Greek was a bit odd, includingbthe non-standard grammar. His first letter is the easiest, and first year Greek reading. Very simple Greek (I can read it myself!). Revelation may have come later, and is of a much more complex and unorthodox style. Then again, people change. Years in Asia Minor and exile may do that to you.
Brother, as always, you killed it! I was going through withdrawal without your entries! One note on John. His Greek was a bit odd, includingbthe non-standard grammar. His first letter is the easiest, and first year Greek reading. Very simple Greek (I can read it myself!). Revelation may have come later, and is of a much more complex and unorthodox style. Then again, people change. Years in Asia Minor and exile may do that to you.