His words and deeds were recorded by eyewitnesses
Certainly, they were not.
afi.org.uk
ARE THE GOSPEL WRITERS EYEWITNESSES TO THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF JESUS ?
By
I. Damiel
It has become a growing trend amongst many Christian missionaries to stress that the gospels were written by disciples of Jesus, men who had firsthand contact with the historical Jesus, the "Son of the Living God". As such, we would presume the information contained in the gospels is reliable and accurate eyewitness records of the life and teachings of Jesus.
Christians often wonder, in the presence of such guarantees of authenticity, how it is possible for a Muslim to doubt the validity of the message contained in the gospels. The Christian preachers insist that the four writers were direct witnesses of the life of Jesus and therefore constitute unquestionable evidence for the accuracy of the gospels.
The first point to note is that even if missionaries were able to establish that the gospels are eyewitness records, that in itself does not confirm the reliability of the gospels. Historians investigating any aspect of recorded or verbal history need to carefully scrutinize the accounts of the eyewitnesses and cannot be expected to take them at face value especially when they have mutually contradicting reports.
The second point is that whilst the missionaries continue making their claims about the authorship of the gospels, modern studies on the beginning of Christianity show that such claims hardly correspond to reality. Contemporary Christian biblical scholars in light of recent discoveries have demonstrated that the gospels were not as described by Saint Justin "Memoirs of the apostles" but writings by anonymous characters whom for the sake of convenience will be called Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
If then the four gospels cannot be regarded as writings of the companions and apostles of Jesus, where do they come from?
The author of Mark's Gospel
The Gospel of Mark, which is considered to be the oldest of the Gospels in the New Testament, was not written by a disciple of Jesus. The early Christian scholar Eusebius of Caesarea (325 C.E) referring to the views of Papias (130 C.E) on the origin of Mark wrote:
"This also the Elder used to say. Mark indeed, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, howbeit not in order, all that he recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord. For he (Mark) heard nothing of the Lord, nor was he a follower of his, but at a later date of Peter, who used to adapt his instructions to the (needs of his hearers), but not with a view to putting together the teachings of the Lord in orderly fashion…(Eusebius, Church History III, 39, 15)
Furthermore Irenaeus (180 C.E) states that:
"Peter and Paul proclaimed the Gospel in Rome. After their death, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted his preaching to us in written form" (Against Heresies III.i.1).
From such evidence we may conclude that, firstly, Mark was not a prominent leader in the church, that he was neither a disciple of Jesus nor an apostle and that secondly since Peter died in the year 64/65 A.D, the Gospel of Mark cannot have been written before this date.
The author of Matthew's Gospel
The New American Bible in its introduction to Matthew's gospel, whilst presenting the prominent position held by the majority of the scholars states:
" The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large parts, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this) and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."
The New American Bible concludes by stating categorically that the author is unknown, but it shall continue to be called Matthew for the sake of convenience.
This view is further echoed by J. B. Phillips, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, the Anglican Church of England:
"Early tradition ascribed this Gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view." (The True Message of Jesus Christ, pg. 23)
In his book Who's Who in the Bible? Peter Calvocressi writes:
" In early times the authorship of the Gospel was ascribed to the apostle Matthew, but since this view has been demolished we are left with an evangelist who, distinct from the apostle, must nevertheless continue to be called Matthew since we have no other name for him."
Raymond Brown in his commentary on the infancy Narratives in Matthew writes:
"There would be nearly unanimous agreement in scientific circles today that the evangelist is Unknown, although we continue the custom of referring to him as "Matthew". His dependence upon Mark indicates that he was not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus" (The Birth of the Messiah, pg. 45)
He concludes by writing in the footnote:
"Roman Catholics were among the last to give up defending officially the view that the Gospel was written by Matthew, one of the twelve". (Ibid. pg. 45)
The author of Luke's Gospel
The New American Bible whilst commenting on the author of Luke's gospel declares that:
"Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch…The prologue of the Gospel make it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples".
Furthermore the New Encyclopedia Britannica gives references to the writings of Irenaeus and Eusibius where Luke is depicted as a follower of Paul's gospel. In the Muratorian Canon Luke is identified as a companion of Paul, but even this identification is widely questioned because of the author's inaccuracies about Paul's career. (The Birth of the Messiah, Raymond Brown, pg. 236)
All we can say is that most likely Luke's gospel was written in a church of the gentile mission and this seems to be the majority opinion, which is found in most biblical commentaries today.
The author of John's Gospel
Professor R.W.Rogerson an Anglican clergyman and a Canon Emeritus of Sheffield Cathedral, in his recent work An Introduction to the Bible writes:
"The conviction has grown that the Gospel was not written by a single author, but is an outcome of a long process of growth in which the distinction between author and redactor/editor was not clear. This conclusion militates against the traditional view that the author was the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, and the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23)." (An Introduction to the Bible, pg. 122).
The New American Bible after reaching the same conclusion further demonstrates why John's Gospel was authored by more than one individual. For example chapter 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; for it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from the rest of the work.
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary whilst discussing this issue notes that:
"The author of John 21 clearly does not identify the Beloved Disciple, who is the source of the Johannine tradition, with John the son of Zebedee. John 21:2 refers to "the (sons) of Zebedee", whereas 21:7, 20 refer to the Beloved Disciple."
The New Jerome Commentary proceeds to outline further difficulties in asserting that the author of the fourth gospel could be John, son of Zebedee. For instance a passage in Mark (10:39) indicates that both brothers (sons of Zebedee) would suffer martyrdom, yet John 21:20-23 asserts that the Beloved Disciple did not die a martyr's death as Peter did. Also the " developments in Christology and the realized eschatology of the Fourth Gospel are well beyond what would be likely for a Galilean fisherman".
Likewise, Graham Stanton a Professor of New Testament Studies also points out that "if the Beloved Disciple belonged to the circle of disciples of Jesus from the beginning, why does the first reference to the beloved disciple come only at 13:23?" (The Gospels and Jesus, pg. 124).
Maurice Casey in his most recent book Is John's Gospel True? discusses the views that are generally championed by the Evangelical Christians and proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" that these views are demonstrably false. He finally concludes that "the Gospel was written by several people when anonymous and pseudepigraphical compositions were normal". (Is John's Gospel true? Pg.176)
Finally, it is also important to note that some early Christians were very suspicious of John's Gospel due to the fact that it is very different from the Synoptic gospels and its popularity with Gnostic and heretical groups. (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg. 946)
To conclude, the missionaries may continue to misguide the general laymen and church congregations with passionate and rhetorical speeches, maintaining that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, but those who are familiar with the history of the gospels find the missionary position to be farfetched, and, at best, wishful thinking.
Bibliography
Brown, R, Fitzmyer. J, Murphy, M. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Geoffrey Chapman, 1997).
Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1977)
Calvocoressi, P. Who's Who in the Bible (Penguin Books, 1987)
Casey, Maurice. Is John's Gospel True? (Routledge, 1996)
Philips, B. The True Message of Jesus Christ (Dar Al Fatah, 1996)
Rogerson, J, W. An Introduction to the Bible (Penguin Books, 1999)
Stanton, G. The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford University Press, 1989)
Stanton, G. Gospel Truth? (Fount Paperbacks, 1997)
The New American Bible, St Joseph, Personal size edition (Catholic Book publishing, 1991). |
