The Gospel of Matthew was written anonymously, but was universally attributed to Jesus apostle Matthew, until the 1800’s. Today, most scholars, and skeptics and critics no longer believe this. Instead, they claim the Gospel of Matthew is based largely on the Gospel of Mark, which they assert was written first, and also on the totally speculative “Q” source. They claim, therefore, that Matthew is unlikely to have been written by one of Jesus closest followers, namely the former tax collector, and apostle of Jesus, Matthew Levi, but instead was written in the 80’s or 90’s CE by one or more second generation disciples. What does the evidence actually show as to when the Gospel of Matthew was written?read more
History says Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the books with those titles. People seem to have a highly variable standard in their assessment of what ancient writings are genuine, especially the Bible. What do we mean? Here is an example:
Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really write the Gospels, or were these names attributed later?
Most people accept Alexander the Great as a real historical figure. Yet, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after the Great One’s death 323 BCE. Legends about him developed centuries after these two writers. Yet, Alexander’s true, accurate history is viewed as being preserved for hundreds of years prior to these legends.
Let’s clear up a misunderstanding about the titles of the Gospels by considering the manuscript evidence: True, there was no “uniformity of the titles.” Yes, there were many variances. But, the one thing that is 100% consistent about the titles is that in the reservoir of several thousand manuscripts of the gospels, they all attribute writership to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively. The exact wording of the titles in various early manuscripts were different, not the same, but they all list Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the writers. None of the titles indicates anonymity..
In every single instance, the names included Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. While there was not uniformity of the titles, there was 100% agreement on writership.
The popular agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman claims that the titles of the Gospels were added by later scribes. But, as is well known, even experts can be wrong. Ehrman’s theory about the titles contradicts the facts.
An interesting point to note here is that while there are four gospel accounts, there is in reality only one gospel that runs through the entire New Testament – the Gospel of, and about, Jesus Christ. As Mark opens his account:
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1LSB; NASB)
The Gospel is the theme of the four accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection. Hence, the titles were drawn from this. Notice:
“Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.” (Matthew 4:23)
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18)read more
Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received his information. (1 Peter 5:13) Peter regards Mark with such warmth and affection that he calls him his son.
This information didn’t come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of Jesus, but as the preaching of Peter – preaching directed to the needs of Christian communities. Mark accurately preserved this material and arranged and shaped it.
The title “According to Mark” appears in all the ancient canonical lists and many ancient manuscripts, and is thought to have been added very early in the history of the text.
Early church fathers all affirm Mark wrote the Gospel:
Papias (140)
Justin Martyr (150)
Iranaeus (185)
Origen
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria (195)
Eusebius (326) – quotes Papias saying “elder” (John) attributed to Mark
Second and third century books falsely claimed apostles as authors rather than secondary figures such as Mark.
“A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” (Mark 14:51-52) The “young man” here may be Mark. “Linen” clothes were a sign of wealth. He was from a wealthy family in Jerusalem. (Acts 12:12-13)
Possible evidence of Mark as Peter’s “interpreter” is the simplified chronological order of events in Mark that mirrors Peter’s rehearsal of those events in Acts. (Acts 3:13-14; Acts 10:36-43)
Peter’s eyewitness accounts include many descriptive scenes in Mark, which are lacking in other gospels. For example:
The end of Mark 15 (excluding verse 47), along with Mark 16:1 in Codex Sinaiticus (c. 350 AD)
What is the true ending of Mark?
The ending of Mark is controversial with some groups. There are several different endings to the Gospel of Mark found in the various Greek manuscripts. Most Greek texts and several ancient translations conclude with the ending familiar to us asMark 16:9-20. However, the earliest Greek manuscript with that ending is from the fifth century, although evidence from the church fathers suggests that the longer ending was already in existence during the second century. Many scholars feel, however, that, in addition the manuscript evidence, the vocabulary and themes of the traditional ending are inconsistent with the rest of the Gospel.read more
