Who Wrote Mark and Luke?
Second in a series on the Authors of the Synoptic Gospels
This is the second article in a series arguing for the traditional attribution of the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This article focuses on Mark and Luke.
The Synoptic Gospels (the first three Gospels in the modern New Testament canon) bear the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but modern scholarship has called into question whether these men were really the authors. Many argue that Matthew (also known as Levi) the tax collector; John Mark, a companion of Peter's; and Luke, the physician and friend of Paul, were dead when the Gospels named after them were actually written and circulated. This series will argue for traditional attribution – namely that Matthew, Mark, and Luke actually wrote the Gospels that bear their names.
In the last article, the traditional case for Matthew was affirmed. This article looks at Mark and Luke, the second and third of the Synoptic Gospels.
Reviewing the Ground Rules
First, let's set cynicism aside. It is simply unfair for biblical critics to assume that false attribution was made and then shift the burden of proof to those who would uphold the early church claim that Matthew, Mark, and Luke actually did author the Synoptic Gospels which bear their names.
Second, anti-supernaturalism as a bias must be set aside. A critic, in order to remain objective, must remain open-minded to the possibility of miracles and prophecy. This is, after all, a religious text in review. This doesn't mean that a critic should take at face value any miracle or prophetic claims, but he or she shouldn't just dismiss them either.
Mark
Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, and Origen, all attribute the second Synoptic Gospel to Mark. (Of course, modern scholarship largely argues that the second was actually the first). These men are not alone. Clement of Alexandria and Jerome of Palestine also affirm Mark's authorship. Their testimony, which comprises early church tradition, is that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, and did so as a compendium of Peter’s preaching and teaching (and perhaps with Peter’s direct assistance).
This Mark is almost certainly John Mark, cousin to Barnabas and sometime companion of both Peter and Paul. He is referred to in Acts and in several of Paul's epistles. One can safely assume that the early church fathers were attributing the Gospel to John Mark, because he is the only really relevant or significant "Mark" that would qualify.
The leading argument for John Mark's authorship is a simple question of logic. Why would the early church falsely attribute this Gospel (especially if it was indeed the first circulated) to Mark, a second-tier follower of Christ at best? Why not attribute it directly to Peter? If the early church wanted to utilize false attribution in order to enhance the manuscript's credibility, they could have done much better than Mark.
In fact, the Gospel of Mark has several internal literary indications of direct eyewitness testimony. This means that Mark was either present at many, perhaps most, of the events described or (more likely) he prepared his Gospel after working with one or more direct eyewitnesses. This seems to confirm early church tradition that the Gospel of Mark was essentially the Gospel of Peter. If that is indeed the case, why didn't the early church just attribute it to Peter? The most obvious answer: They were being honest.
The primary argument against Markan authorship pertains to the dating of the Gospel, something this series will address more later. For now, there is little (aside from possibly the dating question) that would overturn early church tradition. The evidence is overwhelming that John Mark wrote this Gospel.
Luke
Evidence associating Luke with his Gospel and Acts includes the Muratorian Canon of A.D. 180 as well as the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, and famed early church historian Eusebius. Moreover, the earliest complete manuscript of Luke, the Bodmer Papyrus XIV (dated to approximately 175-225 AD) clearly references Luke as the author.
It is fairly clear from the Gospel's first chapter that the author was not a direct eyewitness to the events described. He is writing an "orderly account" of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth after "carefully investigating" the events in question (Luke 1:3). In other words, he is playing the part of investigative reporter and historian.
The nature of the writing indicates that the author was well educated in Greek Hellenistic culture, even more so than John Mark. This fits with Luke.
The best evidence for Luke, though, is that he is most likely the author of Acts. There are several internal clues to this, as well as external attribution. And the Gospel of Luke is almost certainly written by the author of Acts. They are a two-volume set.
Besides, as was the case with Mark, if the early church truly wished to enhance this particular Gospel, why choose Luke’s name? Though Luke was a friend of Paul’s, would it not be better to pick an actual eyewitness to Jesus’ life, someone like Peter or John?
Skepticism over Luke’s authorship simply does not stand up to the logic and testimony of early church tradition. It is therefore safe and logical to conclude that the Gospel of Luke, like the other two Synoptic Gospels, was written by the author whose name is borne by the Gospel.
Our next article will look at the issue of dating. When were these Gospels written?
*********
SOURCES
The sources for this article include:
Sheler, Jeffery. Is the Bible True?
Fiensy, David. The College Press NIV Commentary: New Testament Introduction
And these online articles…
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eusebius_Gospels.htm
http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm
