Smoodock's Blog

Some Bible skeptics try to tell us that, because the authors of the Gospels didn’t sign their works, none of the authors of the Gospel narratives can be known. They’re anonymous! Actually, this is merely an excuse on their part, because, even if the narratives were signed, they’d be asking how we could know for certain the names on the manuscripts were the actual authors. The fact is that Julius Caesar authored the work The Conquest of Gaul, but he never names himself as its author. Tacitus’ work, The Annals are anonymous in the same way the Gospels are anonymous, because Tacitus never signed his work. We could also add Plutarch to this list, because he never names himself as the author of any of his biographies (over 50). Are the scholars unaware of this? I’m sure they aren’t, but they pretend that the fact that the Gospels aren’t signed is a glaring faux pas. Well, that is the strategy of a skeptic, isn’t it – to sow doubt?

Nevertheless, skeptics are important, because they keep the builders from becoming lazy thinkers, but at the end of the day, skeptics build nothing. Instead, they’re noted for their ability to sow doubt and to tear down. How, then, can we know the Gospels’ authors? The answer to this question is the same answer we would give to the skeptics who are doubtful of the names on other manuscripts, like Paul’s letters, Peter’s epistles and those of James and Jude. There exists both internal evidence and external evidence that point to the names of the authors of each of the works.

What do we know about the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel? Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons during the 2^nd century AD, tells us there are no more nor fewer than four Gospel narratives, and he names them: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.[1] In fact, not one of the church fathers, who lived during the first four centuries of church history, ever refer to the four Gospels by any other names. It is never “Matthew, Mark, Luke and Thomas or Peter, or whomsoever. They always use these four and only these four names: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. One would have to have very good reason and ample evidence to the contrary to contradict the witnesses of the first few centuries of church history. The first and perhaps the most important witness is Papias (cir. AD 60 to AD 130), the bishop of Hierapolis, which is in modern day Turkey, writes:

“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”[2]

Papias wrote five books The Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord. These works no longer exist, but a number of fragments of them exist as quotations or references in the works of other authors, such as Irenaeus, Eusebius and others among the Apostolic Fathers. Nevertheless, some modern skeptics question the credibility of Papias as a witness to the authenticity of the source of our Gospel narratives, including Matthew, cited above. Perhaps, the source of their skepticism concerns a statement by Eusebius of Caesarea (cir. 320 AD) in his Ecclesiastical Histories that Papias was a “man of exceedingly small intelligence” (E.H. 3.39). Some of the skeptics use Eusebius’ statement as a sign that Papias wasn’t very bright, relied on hearsay and was therefore not a reliable witness.[3] However, the skeptics mischaracterize Eusebius’ statement. Eusebius was actually expressing his own bias not a true characterization of the earlier brother. His statement comes after he explains Papias’ position on the millennium, and, in effect says that Papias doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Today, evangelicals say the same or something similar about fundamentalists and fundamentalists, likewise, refer to evangelicals similarly, as that pertains to certain issues of doctrine. Yet, this does not mean either group think their brethren are lacking in intelligence. The fact that Eusebius quotes Papias and relies upon what he wrote, as that pertains to authorship of the four Gospel narratives is proof that his statement about Papias’ intelligence is either misunderstood by modern skeptics or he exaggerates his opinion of Papias because of his own private prejudices.

_______________________________________________

[1] See Irenaeus in: Against Heresies, Book 3; 11.8

[2] See: Fragments of Papias; Book 6 (emphasis mine).

[3] Eusebius quotes Papias as saying: “If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders, – what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, …For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”

It is probably assumed by some that Papias’ mention of “books” meant, what was written in the Gospel narratives, but this can hardly be so. Many ancient authors wrote for the entertainment of their audiences, and wrote fiction about famous characters. They preferred imaginative tales over accuracy, as can be seen in the Infancy Gospels, which are a part of the New Testament Apocrypha, and were works of the 2^nd century. These and other “books” such as the Gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and History of Joseph the Carpenter etc., were the kind of literary works, which Papias frowned upon and didn’t believe were accurate.