Gospel Authorship Part III: Apostles as Authorities

In Parts I and II of this blog series, I have been discussing New Testament scholars' claims about the canonical gospel titles being added later and the anonymity of the canonical gospels.

In those posts, I came to the following conclusions: 1) if the titles were added later than the composition of the gospels, the manuscript evidence is not the definitive place to look for an answer. All of our manuscripts bear the traditional titles. 2) The canonical gospels are all formally anonymous, meaning that within the gospel stories themselves the author does not identify himself by name.  Matthew and Mark are 100% formally anonymous and Luke and John give clues as to who wrote them, but those clues are opaque and do not lead to identification with a named figure.

Today I want to look at a phenomenon that occurred mostly in the second century and beyond among Christian writings. That phenomenon is the writing of new "gospels" attributed to one of the apostles or another authoritative Christian figure. Attaching the name of an apostle to a document clearly written in the second century or later appears to be an attempt to lend authority to the story being told. Let's look at three examples of attaching names of Christian authority figures to gospels to see how this works.  All three of the following gospels are dated no earlier than the second century.*

Coptic Gospel of Thomas (opening)

"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas
Thomas recorded."

Here we have an attribution of the sayings of this gospel to "Didymos Judas Thomas" the disciple of Jesus. If Thomas wrote them, they must be reliable, right?

The Protoevangelium of James (25:1)

"James, wrote this history when there was unrest in Jerusalem, at the time Herod died. I took myself into the desert until the unrest in Jerusalem ceased.  All the while, I was glorifying God who gave me the wisdom to write this history."

This gospel, which actually focuses on the birth of Mary, is attributed to James.  This is James, the older step brother of Jesus, presumably from a previous wife of Joseph.  This is the same James who later was a leader in the Jerusalem church.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (1:1)

"I, Thomas the Israelite, have thought it needful to make known unto all the brethren that are of the Gentiles the mighty works of childhood which our Lord Jesus Christ wrought when he was conversant in the body, and came unto the city of Nazareth in the fifth year of his age."

Here we have another attribution of a gospel to Thomas the disciple.  This gospel, perhaps the most entertaining of them all, deals with the exploits of the childhood Jesus.

These three, and many other gospels that I could cite from the second century and beyond, demonstrate that there was a practice in later Christian centuries of attributing contemporary works to authoritative figures of the past.  This was not a new practice, as second temple Jewish literature would often try and call on the authority of a patriarch like Moses or Abraham. But, it does stand in pretty sharp contrast to the four canonical gospels which are formally anonymous. I find it interesting that there was this need to attach an authoritative figure to gospels written in the second century, presumably to lend authority or credibility to the writing itself, while no such attributions exist within the canonical gospels (all dated to the first century).  So, as time went on, it appears that there was a need, beginning in the second century, to attach the name of a first generation Christian figure to writings to lend them authority.

Is it mere coincidence then that evidence for the traditional titles of the four canonical gospels also first appears in the second century?  That will be the question addressed in part four of this series. Come back and see.


*Dates come from Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003).  Some argue for a first century date for Coptic Thomas, but these early datings have not persuaded the guild as a whole.

Gospel Authorship Part II: Formal Anonymity of the Gospels

In my last post, I discussed two very important claims that New Testament scholars (myself included) often make. 1) The Gospel titles (The Gospel According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were added later than the composition of the gospels, and 2) the four canonical gospels are all anonymous.

The main conclusion reached in the last post was that a common assumption that is made based upon these claims, that we have early gospel manuscripts without the titles, is an inaccurate assumption.  In fact, the earliest manuscripts we have that have a space for a title, all bear the traditional gospel titles. The image to the right is a page of p75, a 3rd century manuscript that contains the gospels of Luke and John.  In the image, one can see the title of Luke (euangelion kata loukan), marking the ending of Luke's gospel followed by a couple of line breaks, then the title of John (euangelion kata ioanen).  As far as New Testament manuscripts, we don't have much that is earlier than the 3rd century, and much of that is fragmentary (meaning it would not contain a space for a title).  So, the manuscript evidence demonstrates consistent naming of the gospels in the 3rd century.  But, this is not surprising at all to NT scholars since the traditional titles of the gospels are certainly established in the 2nd century, so we would expect no less.  Of course manuscripts from the 3rd century would bear the traditional titles.  So, barring the discovery of earlier manuscripts, the manuscript evidence will not be able to solve the issue of gospel titles, how early they were attached to the gospels, and whether the gospels were originally anonymous.

Let's examine for a moment the claim that all four canonical gospels are anonymous?  What do scholars mean when they say this?  Well, if they are being careful, what they mean specifically, is that the gospels are formally anonymous.  That is, leaving off the issue of the titles for a moment, and not seeking to answer the question of whether the titles were there originally or not, in the stories the gospels present, the author does not step forward and identify himself.*  Nowhere in the four canonical gospels does the author say something like, "I, Matthew, am the one who witnessed these events," or "I, John, was the disciple who leaned against Jesus' breast."  The gospel authors, within the stories themselves, do not self identify.  This is what scholars mean when they call the gospels anonymous.

Now, each of the four gospels are different and need to be examined individually.  So, the formal anonymity of Matthew and Mark are 100% with no concrete clues as to authorship (the tax collector named "Matthew" in Matthew and the naked young man in Mark are certainly not "concrete" identifications of authorship).

Luke and John do give slight clues. Let's take a look at Luke 1:1-4:

"1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."

The author of Luke identifies himself here in many ways, but not by name.  A few things can be known about the author's identity from this passage.
1) The author knows of other attempts to write "gospels."
2) The author claims to depend on, but is not himself, an eyewitness.
3) The author has undertaken investigation.
4) The author wants to provide an orderly account.

All well and good, but none of these identifications get us closer to a name for the author.

Now look at John 21:23-25:

"23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Here we have a tantalizing statement that seems to attribute authorship.  This is an aside by the narrator of the gospel.  The disciple in question is not given a name, but throughout the gospel of John this disciple is known as the "beloved disciple," who is never associated with John son of Zebedee within the gospel.  On first glance, it would seem that the beloved disciple is the author of the gospel, but that cannot be.  In verse 24, the author(s) clearly self identify as "we."  "We know that his [the beloved disciple] testimony is true." So, this gospel is written by a "we" who are basing what they write on the testimony of the beloved disciple.  Tantalizing? Yes.  Any closer to identifying a name for the author(s)? No.

Well, that is enough for today.  Come back next time for more.

*I am assuming the authors of the four gospels are male.  I have no concrete evidence for this assumption other than the typical patriarchal nature of the first century Roman Empire.

Gospel Authorship I: Questioning Assumptions

Today I want to deal with one scholarly assumption which needs questioning.  New Testament scholars, myself included, often make the claim that the gospel titles (Gospel According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were added later, after the writing of the gospels themselves.  Therefore, a further claim is often made (guilty as charged) that the gospels were all anonymous.

This is a common, but often unquestioned, bit of New Testament scholarly common knowledge.  But what lies behind such claims? Well, I had never thought to question these assertions until a couple of years ago when a student pressed me on the issue, and I had to admit, if only to myself, that I did not know the answer.  So, as any somewhat competent scholar would do, I asked myself why I thought this, and I went searching for the "big guns," scholars of renown to back me up.

I had in my mind many claims that I was sure I had read while in Seminary and Ph.D. studies that had confidently stated things such as "the Gospel titles were all added later." Take for example this quote from Raymond Brown's magnificent New Testament Introduction: "If we work backwards, the title, 'The Gospel According to Mark' was attached to this writing by the end of the second century."¹  And here is the crux, the place where I had made an assumption.  I assumed that such confident claims must have solid evidence.  Specifically, I had in mind a second claim that may or may not go with the first, and that is the claim that "the original manuscripts of the gospels do not have the titles attached." Now, I have not been able to find such a claim in print, but it logically follows on the previous claims.  If the titles were added later and the gospels are all anonymous, then clearly, the earliest manuscripts did not have the titles,  But here comes my assumption.  I assumed that lying behind such claims was the hard evidence.  And, what evidence would be the "smoking gun" that proved that the originals did not bear titles? Well, of course, having an early copy without the titles would prove the previous claims.  And this had been my assumption for years.  I assumed that there were early manuscripts that did not contain the titles.

But on further investigation, no such manuscripts exist.  We do not have a single gospel manuscript sans title.  That is, for a manuscripts complete enough to have a place for a title (i.e., a manuscript with the beginning or end of a gospel), every one we have bears the traditional titles of the gospels.

So much for that assumption.  Well, since this assumption of a manuscript sans title has turned out to be false, does that mean that the previous claims of gospel anonymity fall apart.  Stay tuned for further posts on the matter.

---

1 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 158.
, ^↩

The Smartphone Revolution

Last time I talked about the smartphone revolution, and how it seems to have gone unnoticed by many as a true revolution.  I believe this is the case because many still view these computers in our pockets as "phones" and not miniature personal computers.

I see this often in my line of work as a college professor, as professors are struggling with classroom use of these devices.  Many ban smartphones in the classroom altogether.  I think this is a mistake for two reasons.  First, it creates enmity between student and professor.  For many of the millennial generation, the smartphone is their best friend, their connection to the world, their personal symbol of freedom and autonomy.  If you tell them on the first day of class that these devices are not welcome in class, it starts the class off with an adversarial tone setting up the student against professor.  But, second, and I think far more damaging, it handcuffs the student by removing one of their most powerful resources for learning.  Here students have access to the full internet plus numerous educational apps, yet professors tell them to put these devices away.

I think that this "No Smartphones Policy" has to do with failing to see the smartphone as a true revolution.  I think that these professors still view these devices primarily as phones.  They are just carrying over accepted phone etiquette.

Every new technology requires people to work out new policies of etiquette.  It made sense to have a no phone policy when phones were just phones.  Of course students should not take and receive phone calls in class.  Even with the advent of texting (pre-smartphone), the no phone policy made sense.  No urgent need to text.  But, with the advent of the true smartphone, the internet connected computer in your pocket, I think it is time to develop new etiquette policies that do not handcuff the student and deny one of their most powerful learning tools.

So, instead of banning phones, isn't it time to come up with a new system of etiquette that teaches students respectful and proper use of these devices, while making use of these powerful tools in the classroom?

If any professors happen to be reading this, what is your policy for smartphones in the classroom? Should they be used or banned?  How do you control misuse?

The Quiet Revolution

A quiet revolution has taken place in the last eight years, and many of us have hardly noticed it.  It is not that this revolution has literally been quiet.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  It has been in our face, on billboards, television commercials, in newspaper articles, and, for many of us, in our pockets.  No, it is not that this revolution has been quiet, but rather, most have not seen it as a revolution.

The revolution, of course, is the advent of the smartphone.  These little devices in our pockets have revolutionized just about everything in life for those who have participated.  It is hard for me to believe that the smartphone only came about in 2007 with the first iPhone. It seems like longer than that given how accustomed I am to reaching into my pocket to check the weather, email, sports scores, IMDB, and countless other queries I may have.

The reason I call this revolution "quiet," is because for many, no real revolution took place.  The smartphone was just the next incremental improvement in the cellphone market that has been making these incremental changes since the 1980s.  In that view, wireless phones went from being suitcase-size devices gradually getting smaller over the years until the impossibly small Nokia 8210
which I purchased through T-Mobile in 2001.  Then came the flip phones.  Then came the flip phones with color screens, and finally the flip phones with cameras.  Finally, a few bought Blackberry devices that had full keyboards and limited internet capabilities.  Again, in this view, the iPhone, and the subsequent smartphone market was just another incremental change in the continuing development of telephone technology. Here is an image depicting the evolution of the cellphone.

Here we see a smooth transition from the gigantic Motorola 8900X-2, gradually growing smaller, then increasing in size again to the Sony Xperia Z Ultra.  But I would contend that there should be a sharp break between cellphones and so-called smartphones.  Smartphones have more in common with desktop or laptop computers than they have in common with a pre-2007 cellphone. Here is a screenshot depicting my battery usage on my iPhone 6 for the past four days. The phone app is tied for 6th place with 4% of battery usage.  But notice, even that has the note "low signal" (I live in an area where I often only have one or two bars). So, my phone app usage was not even me using the phone, it was the phone trying to acquire signal.  This is telling.  My smartphone is not really a phone, or at least it is not used as one very often.  It is a computer in my pocket that also can make and receive phone calls when I have need of that function.

The reason this revolution has gone largely unnoticed is that we still call these devices "phones."  Whether we call it an iPhone, or a smartphone, we have kept the name "phone," and this is deceptive and does not allow us to realize that we are really dealing with something new.  In my next post, I want to talk about a few of the implications that arise from this revolution and the failure to truly see it as a revolution.

The Galatians Back to Paul, and Paul's Response

[[Warning: Thought Experiment Below.  If you are uncomfortable with or unable to detect satire and sarcasm, please quit reading now]]

I, Nestor, on behalf of the churches of Galatia, write to you, Paul, our Apostle and father in the faith.  Grace and peace to you.

We are so grateful for you, and especially for your last letter.  Your position on circumcision saved many of our men from a painful experience.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Many, if not all of us would have gladly been circumcised, seeing it as a small price to pay for the benefits of being made full members of God's family. And those Jewish followers of Christ who came from Jerusalem made such a compelling case from the scriptures that circumcision was a necessary part of being full members of God's covenant people. Yet, we all gasped a sigh of relief as we read your letter, and now that you have presented your argument, we are all the more convinced (although some of that stuff about Sarah, Hagar and the Child of promise seemed a little bit of a stretch).  The rite of circumcision has served only as a barrier or wall that separated Jew and Gentile.  We see it so clearly now that what was accomplished in Christ was the smashing of all such barriers so that Gentiles, like us, can be fully incorporated into the family of God.

Now, those from Jerusalem have returned, and while they are still pestering us about circumcision, few of us seem swayed even a little.  But, another issue has arisen and been pressed by the Jerusalem Christians, and we thought it prudent to write to you for your advice in this matter as well.  We think we know the answer, but would like your thoughts as our Apostle and father in the faith.

You see, down in Lystra they have just erected a gorgeous new temple to Zeus. The marble work is superb, (at least it looks so from a distance, we as a community dedicated to Christ will not worship such false idols), and Philip saw the imposing statue as it was brought into town, and he said he had never seen craftsmanship so beautiful.  Anyway, we thought it sad that Zeus, this idol, whom many of us used to worship but as we now know is no god at all, should be revered with such marvelous architecture and sculpture, while God and Christ are nowhere to be seen.  Therefore, we, the churches of Galatia have decided to pool our resources, and through much sacrificial giving, we have come up with enough to commission a competent local sculptor to sculpt for us a modest, but very well done statue of God.  We have seen preliminary drawings done by the sculptor, and I think you would be very pleased.  When complete, though it will not rival the statue of Zeus in stature, I believe it will be more than sufficient to let our community know that God has a presence here.

Now, here's the rub.  These Jerusalem followers of Christ were outraged when they heard of our plans.  Once again, they whipped out their trusty scripture scrolls and pointed us to the commandment in Exodus, which reads something like, "You shall make no graven images of God, or anything else for that matter."  Well, we just don't know.  Sure, there it was, right in the scriptures, but so was circumcision. So, what are we to do with what these Jerusalem followers of Christ are calling the "Law."  You wrote in your last letter that we were justified by the faithfulness of Christ and by our faithful trust in him, not by these "works of the Law."  So, we believe we know what your answer will be (but we thought we would write to you just to make sure).  So, unless we hear back from you to the contrary, we will go with your previous letter and act is if the "Law" is not binding on us in this matter, as it was with the "Law" of circumcision.

John and Theodore send there greetings.  May the peace of Jesus the Christ and God the Father be with you.


I, Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, write to the churches in Galatia.  Grace and Peace to you through God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I give thanks for your careful reading of my first letter.

Quite busy now with these surly Corinthians.  No time for a lengthy letter. About your issue, nothing more needs to be said.  You are right, the "Law" means nothing.  Disregard it and I look forward to seeing the statue of God.  I've never seen one before.  Why didn't I think of that?

Timothy sends his greetings and says: Statues of God Rock. Grace and peace.

Mark's Ending

Today I want to discuss the ending of Mark's Gospel.  In recent years, with the proliferation of literary analyses of the Gospel of Mark, many NT scholars (myself included) have been convinced that Mark intended to end his gospel at 16:8.  This of course is not a debate about whether the same author could have written the various longer endings of Mark, which is an issue that seems to be settled in textual criticism to a large degree.  The most original ending or Mark's Gospel is at 16:8.  But debates have raged about a lost ending, or the possibility that Mark died before he could finish.  But now, many have argued that Mark intended to end the Gospel at 16:8.

What I want to address here is a sentiment that I have heard many times, but most recently in one of the episodes of Mark Goodacre's NT Pod.  The sentiment is as follows: If NT scholars in the late 20th and early 21st centuries have come to find some literary genius behind Mark's enigmatic ending, then they are the only people throughout all of church history who have done so.  That is, they are so narcissistic to believe that they alone possess the knowledge and skill to recognize Mark's genius.  The argument runs that everyone throughout church history has found the short ending of Mark problematic.

I want to push back on this argument for a moment.  Can we really say that everyone throughout church history has found Mark's short ending a problem?  I don't think so.  Sure, we have examples of a handful of people in ancient church history who found the ending problematic.  Matthew sees fit to add to Mark's ending, so does Luke, so does John if he is familiar with Mark. That's 3 people who either found Mark's ending problematic and added to it.  We also have three different endings in the manuscript tradition (the shorter ending, the Freer Logion, and the Longer ending).  So, I count 6 people who we know either had a problem with the ending, or thought they could improve it.  But, those 6 are not everybody.  Certainly, after the longer ending gained ascendancy in the manuscript tradition, we cannot say that people were dissatisfied with the shorter ending.  They weren't aware of the shorter ending.  So we can discount the claim that anyone from about 500-1800 discounted the shorter ending.  They simply didn't know it was an option.

Well, what about before the longer ending became the majority text?  I have pointed out at least 6 people who went a different way and may have found Mark's ending wanting.  But is this everybody?  Again I say no.  The counter evidence suggests that the very fact that we have manuscripts which end at 16:8 means that there were at least some (the copyists of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for example) who either found no problem with the short ending, or at least did not feel compelled to change it.  Perhaps there were early Christians who recognized the genius of Mark's short ending, but over time their voices were lost in the midst of the manuscript tradition in which the various other options had become dominant. So I do not think that we can say that everybody except for modern NT scholars have failed to recognize a possibility that Mark intended  to end his Gospel at 16:8.  Modern NT scholars might stand in good company with many others (the copyists of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus included).