Seminar 6 - New Testament Word Studies

Now that we have established how the New Testament came to us, and the Inspiration of Scripture, let us consider separately each of the Gospels.

The gospel of Matthew, as with the other gospels, does not tell us who wrote it, yet the church fathers of the earliest centuries unanimously hail the apostle Matthew as its unquestioned author. Modern critical scholars have questioned its authorship as they have all the other gospel authors. Their reasoning is that if it was written by an eyewitness why would the author depend so heavily on Mark's gospel as a resource? The answer could be as simple as Mark's gospel being familiar to the whole church. Therefore it would be an excellent starting outline on which to build Matthew's own view of the events and teachings of Christ.

Jerome, one of the early church fathers, recounts the history of Matthew's authorship as passed down to him:

"Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, who lived around AD 100, says, 'Matthew wrote his oracles in Hebrew and each interpreted it into Greek as he could.' " (McBirnie p175)

His use of the past tense indicated that even by his time the Hebrew manuscript was a thing of the past, so that by the turn of the century the authoritative Greek translation was firmly in place and in extensive use by the churches. Nothing of the Hebrew manuscript has survived to our day. It has been speculated that the explanation for this may be the wide use of Greek, and that the Hebrew Christian judaizers clung tenaciously to the Hebrew, which over time became so corrupted by heretical influences it was rejected by the church.

It is surmised by most scholars and historians that the Greek speaking Jews, known as Hellenists, would have needed the Greek version of Matthew's gospel which in all likelihood Matthew himself provided, as some historical evidence indicates. This would explain the disappearance of the Hebrew manuscript, being unnecessary. The Greek version, accepted and used in all the churches before the time of the apostle John's death, would certainly have been protested by John had it not also carried Matthew's apostolic authority.

Matthew's gospel was probably written in Palestine originally written in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic, then translated into Hebrew. No one knows for sure since none of the original Hebrew or Aramaic documents survive to our day. It appears that Matthew had a good knowledge of Mark's gospel and quotes from it extensively. (91% of Mark appears verbatim in Matthew.) It would be reasonable to assume that Matthew was the second Gospel since Matthew did not quote from Luke or John. (Some have tried to prove that Mark borrowed from Matthew but the internal and external evidence weighs heavily in favor of Mark's gospel preceding Matthew's. The Gospel of Matthew was probably written sometime around or after AD 50, certainly before AD 60.

Matthew obviously wrote for Jewish people whether Hebrew or the Hellenistic Jews still in exile scattered in other parts of the world. His main purpose is to show from the Old Testament scripture, from which he quotes or translates directly, that Jesus is the Messiah in fulfillment of the prophecies. He emphasized the lineage of David, the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus as the Son of David. Despite his appeal to the Hebrew mind he beautifully wove into the narrative such universal aspects of the Gospel as "the field is the world," the coming of the Magi, and the full text of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20. (NIV p1439)

The Gospel of Mark is most likely the first of the gospels to be written. (Though some scholars contest this.) It is the shortest of the four gospels and it appears to have been used by Matthew and Luke as a skeleton upon which to build their narratives. The earliest known manuscript of Mark was found to be in the library of the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls which were sealed in a cave around AD 50. That would mean that within the first 16 years after Jesus' life, death, and resurrection this gospel was written and circulated among the churches.

Critical scholars question the authenticity of Mark's gospel, rejecting historical tradition and recent archeological evidence that confirms its early existence. They also discredit Mark as being the John Mark of the New Testament based on their failure to find corroborating evidence in secular material of the time. They claim the book must have been written later than AD 70 and most probably by an unknown western Roman Christian who just happened to be named Mark, along with thousands of other Marks who lived at that time. Did Mark Write the Gospel that Bears His Name?

There is no internal evidence of the authorship of Mark's gospel, yet it is the unanimous witness of the early church Mark is the author. The earliest record of Markian authorship was by Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, in AD 140. Papias wrote a detailed account of Mark's authorship of the gospel. In quoting an even earlier source Papias testified that

1. Mark, who was the author, was the same John Mark of the New Testament mentioned in Acts.
2. John Mark was a close companion of the apostle Peter and was his interpreter.
3. Mark wrote the account at Peter's request and it was based on Peter's preaching of the gospel.
4. Mark accurately recorded the events and sayings of Jesus which writing was approved by Peter to be distributed and read among the churches. (NIV Study Bible p1490 and Jeffrey p254)

For many years higher criticism dated the Gospel of Mark near the end of Peter's life in Rome, at about AD 70 shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. More recent research, based on the findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947),have proved that fragments of Marks gospel were in the library of scrolls the Essenes preserved before AD 50. Therefore Mark's gospel had to have been written within a dozen years of Christ's life. Why is this so important? This discovery by professor Jose O'Callaghan concluded that the gospel was in circulation while hundreds of eyewitnesses, including the disciples, were still alive to correct, refute, or challenge any inaccuracies had there been any. (Jeffrey p251)

Similar to the other gospels, Luke's gospel also contains no author's name, yet it has been unquestionably ascribed to the hand of Dr. Luke from the first century. This gospel is unique in that it is a dual volume containing both the gospel and the book of Acts, both written by the same author, each perhaps separated by a few years. It contains a prologue that carefully outlines the purpose and intent of the work:

" Many have taken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-3)

From this prologue we learn several things about the author:

1. The author is an educated man writing to a highly esteemed dignitary named Theophilus. We do not know who Theophilus was but some conjecture he was a high ranking Roman official acquainted with the author and who has made inquiries concerning the story of Jesus Christ. The author begins very professionally using language of classical Greek which was a common practice in historical works of the time. Therefore we conclude the author to be an educated man, well versed in the classical Greek writing style, and well known by men of influence.
2. The author refers to things "fulfilled among us" thus including himself with the band of those about whom he is writing. The author uses the first person singular "I" and later in the second volume the first person plural "we" thus showing that he was part of the story that is being recounted. He also reveals that he was not an eyewitness of Jesus Christ but received this information from others who were eyewitnesses.
3. The author presents himself as a careful investigator, the implication being that he is not presumptuous to do so but well qualified among his peers to accomplish this task.
4. The author reveals his sources: Eyewitnesses and servants of the word, as well as written accounts others have made of these events. It becomes obvious to the attentive reader that Luke is writing later than Matthew and Mark. Matthew qualifies as one of the eyewitnesses who took upon himself to write an account, and Mark is well known in Luke's Acts of the Apostles as "a minister of the word." This does not limit the author to two sources but implies that he relied on at least two written accounts and most likely other accounts as well. ("Many have taken in hand to write.") It is possible that the author traveled extensively to research this report. His sources would include personal recollections from the apostles, including Paul with whom Luke had very close associations. He would have interviewed women who accompanied Jesus as well as those who were healed by him. He may well have had a compiled library of written sources not available to Matthew and Mark, nor to us.
5. The author's intent is to put the events into an orderly account for the reader. That is, the author is attempting to organize the material in a chronological fashion as closely as possible to recollections of the witnesses. Luke then is the first to attempt a harmony of the gospels. We should remember also the testimony of John who later fills in the blanks for Matthew, Mark, and Luke who said of his own gospel account: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book." (John 20:30) And "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were to be written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25) There are events in Matthew that Luke does not include (i.e. The Wise Men) The same can be said for Luke's exclusion of some of Mark's material. All of the gospel authors use editorial license to choose those events that best suit their task and their audience.

Is Luke the Author?

Though the author does not mention his own name the internal evidence points to Luke.

1. Luke is the only New testament character that can fit the "I" and "we" passages of Acts. (See Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-28:16) Luke had extensive knowledge and access to Paul and all the apostles.
2. Luke was a gentile, well educated in Greek culture and language, a Greek speaker, probably born in Antioch, and he was a physician who accompanied Paul on several of his journeys and ministered to Paul while in prison.Luke's gospel uses the best Greek of the four and is written for the gentile mind.
3. Internal evidence that points to Luke is the volume of medical terminology used in his record. The author Hobart, in The Medical Language of Luke, documents over four hundred medical terms used by Luke alone among the gospel writers, which terms are also found in other Greek medical writers.
4. Finally the enormous voice of the church from the earliest days assign the gospel to Luke. In fact, there was no difference of opinion as to the authorship of this gospel. Such early church fathers as Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, as well as the Muratorian Fragment all agree that Dr. Luke is the author of both Luke and Acts.

The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John is the fourth witness to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. John's gospel stands out among the others in that he does not seem to rely on any of the previously written sources. Then why should he? He was the beloved disciple, one of Jesus' inner circle, and an eyewitness to all that Jesus did. His name is not mentioned in this gospel which is strange seeing his prominent place among the twelve. Perhaps his conspicuous absence itself indicates he is the author. No one else would ignore such a prominent figure. John however, does reference himself as "the disciple whom he loved" (John 19:26) He reveals himself only briefly at the end of the gospel when Jesus commands Peter to "feed my sheep" then says of the disciple whom Jesus loved, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" The apostle then removes the veil identifying himself by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. (John 21:24)

John's gospel is distinctly different from the other gospels in several ways. That is why it is NOT called a Synoptic Gospel. It is not seen as mirroring the others. It does however contribute to the chronology of the life of Jesus in significant ways. John tells the stories the others may not have known or neglected to tell. Jerome relates his understanding of the motives that led John to write this gospel record.

1) John, the evangelist, wrote a gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus, and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogmas of the Ebonites, who asserted that Christ did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity."

2) Yet another reason for this work was that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true, but that that they had given the history of only one year, the one that is, which follows the imprisonment of John... he relates the events of Jesus ministry in the earlier Judean ministry before John was shut up in prison." (McBirnie p117)

John's gospel then is another eyewitness account of the life of Christ from the perspective of the inner circle. John presents the gospel as it would appeal to the Greek thinkers, as a philosophy and theology behind the historical events.

John states his purpose for himself, "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." (John 20:31) Truly it is the evangelistic gospel. Myriads of truth seekers have come to Christ simply by reading this gospel. One can easily see throughout the book his intense interest in answering or rather leading the reader to answer the question, "Who is Jesus?" You cannot read the gospel of John and walk away thinking that Jesus was just a great man, or a prophet. C.S. Lewis put it this way:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. he would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."

Josh McDowell put it succinctly as a trilemma (as opposed to a dilemma) - Jesus Christ must be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord." (McDowell, Evidence. p103)

Grant R. Jeffrey, The Signature of God, Frontier Research Publications, Inc., 1996
William Steuart McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, Living Books/Tyndale, 1973
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Campus Crusade for Christ, 1979
Josh McDowell, A Ready Defense, Compiled by Bill Wilson, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993