The Anonymous Gospels

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the authors

Dec 28, 2024

The Gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not written by the individuals to whom they are traditionally attributed. Scholars widely agree that these texts are anonymous, and their association with these figures emerged later within early Christian tradition. The titles "According to Mark," "According to Matthew," and so on, were likely added in the second century to lend credibility to these writings by connecting them with figures believed to have been close to Jesus or the apostles. These texts, however, make no direct claims of authorship, and a close examination of their content reveals that they were likely assembled from various oral and written sources that circulated within early Christian communities.

One crucial aspect to understand is that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death. Scholars estimate that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was likely written around 65-70 CE, roughly 35-40 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Matthew and Luke are thought to have been composed between 80-90 CE, about 50-60 years after Jesus’ life. The Gospel of John, the most theologically developed, is generally dated to around 90-100 CE, potentially up to 70 years after the events it describes.

Theological Interpretations and Historical Reliability

Given this timeline, it’s highly unlikely that the authors of the Gospels had any direct interaction with Jesus. By the time these texts were composed, the figure of Jesus had already been transformed into a central figure of worship and devotion within the early Christian movement. The Gospels, then, are not eyewitness accounts but rather theological interpretations written by believers who were promoting a certain vision of Jesus - one that had been influenced by decades of oral tradition, theological debate, and evolving Christian beliefs. The fact that these Gospels were written so long after Jesus’ life, coupled with the lack of historical corroboration for many of their claims, further undermines their reliability as factual records.

When compared, the Gospels exhibit significant differences in both style and content, calling into question their reliability as historical documents. These inconsistencies indicate that the writers were likely more focused on promoting specific theological agendas than on providing an accurate account of events.

Discrepancies in Prophecy and Genealogy

One area where this is particularly evident is in the emphasis on Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy, especially in the Gospel of Matthew.

In Matthew 1:22-23, it states, “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.”

However, this prophecy comes from Isaiah 7:14, where the original Hebrew word עַלְמָה (almah) simply means “young woman” rather than “virgin,” which raises important questions about Matthew’s accuracy and his intentions in presenting Jesus in this light.

The genealogies of Jesus also reveal discrepancies between the Gospels. The Gospel of Luke offers a different version of Jesus' lineage, tracing Jesus’ ancestry through David’s son Nathan, rather than Solomon, as found in Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1:6-16). These genealogies not only conflict but also serve distinct theological purposes: Matthew’s Jesus is portrayed as the royal heir to David, while Luke’s Jesus is depicted as the universal saviour, connected to all humanity through Adam. Such differences challenge the notion of a unified narrative about Jesus’ lineage and raise questions about the historical accuracy of these accounts.

Contradictions in the Crucifixion and Resurrection Accounts

Contradictions also appear in the accounts of Jesus' death. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus expresses deep anguish. In Mark 15:34, he cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In contrast, Luke portrays Jesus as calm and resigned, stating in Luke 23:46, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The method and timing of Jesus' crucifixion differ as well; Mark 15:25 suggests Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9 a.m.), while John 19:14 places Jesus before Pilate at the sixth hour (noon), implying a significant discrepancy in the timeline. Such variations complicate the narrative and suggest a lack of consistent historical record amongst the Gospel writers.

The accounts of who discovered the empty tomb further exemplify these contradictions. According to Mark 16:1, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visit the tomb. Matthew 28:1 mentions only two women: Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary." Luke 24:10 adds Joanna to the group, while John 20:1 describes only Mary Magdalene going to the tomb by herself. These conflicting narratives complicate the resurrection story and suggest that the Gospel writers were not preserving a coherent historical account.

John’s Unique Theological Perspective

The Gospel of John diverges dramatically from the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) in both tone and theology. While the Synoptics focus on Jesus’ teachings and miracles, John emphasises his divinity from the outset. In John 1:1, Jesus is identified as the pre-existent Word (Logos): “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This high Christology is absent in the other Gospels, indicating a more developed theological perspective.

John's Gospel recounts the dramatic raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44), a story entirely absent in the Synoptic Gospels, which could be surprising to readers given its significance. Instead, in Luke 16:19-31, we find a parable involving a different Lazarus, a poor man who dies and is carried to Abraham's bosom. This confusion between two figures named Lazarus raises further questions about the historical reliability of the narratives. The absence of such a powerful event in three accounts calls into question why it wouldn’t have been mentioned elsewhere if it were indeed a significant miracle.

Another set of contradictions arises regarding Jesus' final words on the cross. In Mark 15:34, Jesus expresses despair: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In contrast, Luke 23:46 presents a more serene ending, with Jesus calmly saying, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." John 19:30 has Jesus declaring, "It is finished." These varying depictions reflect the different theological emphases of each Gospel rather than a cohesive historical account.

Theories of Gospel Origins: The Q Source and Borrowing

In addressing the similarities between Matthew and Luke, scholars once proposed the "Q source" theory. This hypothetical document was thought to contain sayings of Jesus that both authors drew from in addition to their reliance on Mark. However, the existence of Q has come under scrutiny in recent years. Scholars increasingly favour explanations suggesting that Matthew and Luke may have borrowed from each other or other, now-lost sources. The lack of physical evidence for Q, combined with the significant differences between the Gospels, complicates the discussion about their origins and relationships.

These contradictions and omissions illustrate that while the Gospels claim to tell a unified story, they often diverge significantly. Such differences highlight the idea that these texts may be tailored theological narratives rather than reliable historical accounts. The Gospels appear to have been written with specific religious agendas in mind, reflecting the concerns and aims of their authors rather than providing a straightforward account of events.

Challenges to the Gospels’ Historical Claims

Historically, the Gospels also face challenges in providing corroborating evidence for many of their key claims. For instance, the Gospel of Matthew describes a miraculous event at Jesus' death, stating that “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose” (Matthew 27:52). Yet, no contemporary records mention such an extraordinary occurrence, suggesting it was likely a theological embellishment rather than a historical fact.

From a scientific perspective, the Gospels reflect a limited understanding of the world in their time. Diseases like epilepsy, attributed to demonic possession (Mark 9:17-27), are now understood through a medical lens. This portrayal of mental illness as a result of evil spirits demonstrates the ancient worldview underlying these texts.

Ethical and Moral Considerations in the Gospels

Ethically, the Gospels are not immune to criticism. While Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness have had a lasting moral impact, other passages raise serious concerns. For example, Jesus' harsh rebuke of his opponents in Matthew 23:33, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” contradicts his message of love and forgiveness. Additionally, Jesus’ seeming indifference to slavery is troubling. In Luke 12:47-48, he uses the beating of slaves in a parable without condemning the practice, reflecting the acceptance of slavery in the ancient world.

The Gospels as Theological Narratives

The Gospels are a complex mix of theology, oral tradition, and literary construction, written with the intent of advancing specific religious agendas rather than providing a reliable historical account. The contradictions between them, coupled with their outdated views on science and ethics, challenge their status as infallible texts. While they offer valuable insight into the beliefs and concerns of early Christian communities, a critical examination of these texts reveals the complexities and challenges of relying on them as foundational documents in light of history and reason.

In summary, the Gospels present a compelling narrative about Jesus, but the contradictions and variations in their accounts raise significant questions about their reliability as historical documents. Exploring these differences can lead to a deeper understanding of the complexities within the texts and the diverse perspectives that shaped early Christianity.

Share Deconstructing Faith and Scripture

Deconstructing Faith and Scripture

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?