Who Wrote the Four Gospels? Critics contend that we do not know who really wrote the gospels. In fact, it is argued that the standard titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren’t added until a century later to give these documents apostolic authority. Does the evidence support the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels: Many historians and commentators date the Gospels between AD 70 and AD 100. This subject is surely up for debate. However, based on the manuscript evidence, the citation from the Church Fathers, the dating of the Book of Acts, and the early citations from Paul, we think there is good evidence for an early dating of the Gospels.
After God broke Peter out of prison, Peter showed up at Mark’s house (Acts 12:12). Mark later became a member of Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), but Paul refused to take him on his second missionary journey, because Mark had some sort of meltdown on the first journey (Acts 15:36-39). After Barnabas and Paul split, Mark went with Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts 15:39). Later, Barnabas (?) must have restored Mark to a vibrant ministry, as Paul attests in his later letters (Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11).
Mark’s cousin Barnabas was a wealthy, Greek speaking Hellenist (Col. 4:10; Acts 4:36). His mother, Mary, seems reasonably wealthy as well, because she was a widow but also a home owner (Acts 12:12), who lived in Jerusalem.
From these references, we see that Mark was closely associated with Paul, Peter, and Barnabas. He came from wealth, and he would be a good person to write this gospel. This only confirms Christian history which confirms that John Mark was the author, writing under Peter (see Who Wrote the Four Gospels?).
We are not entirely sure to whom Mark was writing. If we had to guess, it would be the Christians in Rome. Mark was with Peter in Rome (1 Pet. 5:13) and later with Paul in Rome (2 Tim. 4:11). Early church tradition puts Peter in Rome at the end of his life, so it seems likely that Mark wrote from Rome and presumably to Rome.
Mark also feels the need to explain Jewish customs (Mk. 7:1-4; 15:42), translate Aramaic words (Mk. 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22), and emphasize persecution and martyrdom (Mk. 8:34-38; 13:9-13). Less persuasive are the presence of “Latinisms” in Mark (i.e. Latin terms that would lend themselves to a Roman audience). The problem with this evidence is that these could fit throughout the Roman Empire—not just in the capital of Rome.
Mark drives through the events of Jesus’ life at a rapid pace (notice his use of the word “immediately”). This fast and frantic pace fits with the rapid rates of persecution in Rome. R. Alan Cole finds the destination of Rome “attractive,” but “not proven,” and we would tend to agree. While we are inclined to see a Roman audience, the evidence is decidedly thin.
The early church fathers didn’t give this gospel much attention, preferring Matthew instead. After all, if 90% of Mark is in Matthew (all but 40 verses), then why should we give Mark serious study?
The benefit of Mark’s gospel is that it gives a bare bones description of Jesus’ life. Before others had written down these events, Mark wrote his gospel. We cannot compare him to the other authors anachronistically. They built upon the simple, yet solid, skeleton of what he wrote. Since Matthew and Luke appreciated Mark’s work and quoted it frequently, why shouldn’t we?
For example, talitha cumi (5:41), ephphatha (7:34), rabbi (9:5 niv), rabboni (10:5 rv), abba (14:36), and the cry from the cross, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthāni (15:34). R. Alan Cole, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 59.
R. Alan Cole, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 73.
James is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies.
