Can Textual Criticism Tell Us Who Authored the Gospels?
by J Warner Wallace
When you write a book about the reliability of the New Testament Gospels as eyewitness accounts, you can expect to get a response from skeptics. Many simply refuse to acknowledge the Gospels as eyewitness accounts in the first place. I think there are good reasons to accept them as such, in spite of the fact the Gospels include incidents the authors didn’t see personally, the witnesses can’t be cross-examined, and the fact here are variations in the ancient manuscripts. The question is not whether these ancient accounts could be used in a modern criminal trial, but whether they are accurate eyewitness accounts related to the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Some skeptics attack the authorship of the accounts, questioning the historical attributions of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. Using the tools of textual criticism, critics cast doubt on the authenticity of particular events or the identity of each author. Sometimes word for word similarities between accounts are highlighted in an effort to discredit a Gospel as an original source of information. Sometimes apparent changes in language within a Gospel are offered as evidence there is more than one author at work. While I am also inclined to examine every word carefully, I am conscious of the limits of this kind of textual criticism. As I employ some of these same tools, I try to keep the following considerations in mind:
Consider the Time Span in Which the Document Was Written
Critics sometimes point to differences in language or writing style within a Biblical text as evidence of more than one author, but this can often be attributed to the time span in which the document was written. As a cold-case detective, I regularly open old cases in which a detective authored a
|‘Like’ The Poached Egg on Facebook!||Follow @ThePoachedEgg||Please give to The Poached Egg|
“running supplemental” report over a period of time. He started writing on the day of the murder and then updated the report over several years as he continued his investigation unsuccessfully. Looking back at the report years later, it often appears as though several partners worked on the document, when, in fact, only one investigator penned it. As the detective matured as an investigator and writer, his style changed. In a similar way, criticisms of the Pentateuch (for example) must consider the time span over which Moses wrote the document and account for the natural changes in his writing style. We see something similar in the New Testament as we examine the work of Luke (particularly in the book of acts). Given its potential authorship over a long period of time, we should expect internal variations in language and style (Luke even slips into first person narrative at one point).
Consider the Limits of the Technology Being Used by the Author
When the original detective wrote the supplemental report back in the days prior to computers (or word processors), he dictated the words to a secretary who typed them on a typewriter. As a result, detectives seldom returned to earlier portions of the report to modify their language, change punctuation or correct typos. Instead, they learned to live with their prior language choices and grammatical errors due to the technological limits they faced. I’m sure this was also the case with ancient authors writing with primitive tools or dictating to scribes who used the same resources. I’ve returned to articles I’ve written in the past and I’m often embarrassed by my choice of language or poor punctuation. As a result, I’ve re-written a number of these posts and I’m slowly removing the old articles from the web. Ancient authors didn’t have this option…