How do we know the Bible we use today is the same as what was written by the authors approximately 2,000 years ago?
The text of the Gospels in their present condition can be traced to a period prior to 200 A.D. in the following manner. From about 175 to about 215 A.D. there flourished in Europe, North [1]Africa, and Asia Minor[1] ecclesiastical (Church) writers who wrote many treatises (a formal work on a subject, especially one that deals systematically with its principles and conclusions) on theological and apologetical subjects. The most prominent of these writers were St. Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul (modern day France) (c. 130/140-203), Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (c. 150/160-211) and Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa (c. 150/160-220). Many of their writings still exist today and they abound in literally thousands of quotations from the Bible. An actual count shows that St. Irenaeus quotes the New Testament 1819 times, Clement of Alexandria quotes it 2406 times and Tertullian quotes it the incredible number of 7259 times. So frequently, in fact, does Tertullian quote the New Testament that a German scholar by the name of Rönsch was able to produce most of it from the works of this African writer alone. The same could be done from the works of the other two writers. Now if a composite were made of the New Testament quotations found in the works of these writers and that composite were compared to the New Testament as it is today, one would discover that the readings are essentially the same. This shows that the modern text of the New Testament was in existence in the second half of the Second Century.
In the Second Century there lived a writer named Tatian (c. 120-180) who composed a “Diatesseron” or Harmony of the Gospels. In this work, Tatian used all the Gospels to compose, probably in Syriac, one continuous narrative of the Gospels. For a long time, the “Diatesseron” was lost until its Arabic translation was found and edited by Ciasca in 1888. This discovery is important because it shows that the text of the Gospels of modern times is essentially the same as the one which lay before Tatian when he wrote his “Diatesseron” shortly before the middle of the Second Century. But since Tatian became acquainted with the Gospels through Justin the Martyr, who converted him, the text of the Gospels goes back to the time of St. Justin Martyr, or to about 140 A.D.
There is clear evidence that in the first half of the Second Century, the average Christian was acquainted with the Gospels. This is gathered from a statement which St. Justin makes in his First Apology. He says that it was the practice of the time to read the Gospels to the people every Sunday during services.
“For the Apostles in the records which they have made and which are called the Gospels, have declared that Jesus commanded them to do as follows. ‘He took bread and gave thanks and said, Do this in commemoration of Me” (I Apology 66.3).
And on the day called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts, and the records of the Apostles…are read as long as time permits” (I Apology 67.3).
For this practice to take place, it was necessary for the Gospels to have spread in manuscript form among the Christian communities.
The Authorship of the Gospels
The Gospels were used from the earliest times. They were extensively used by Christians as early as the Second Century. But even while the Gospels were being used, there began to appear certain false gospels known as apocryphal gospels. Some of these false gospels are available today. The names of about twenty of them are still known and it is certain that a great many more have been lost. The very existence and nature of these apocryphal gospels shed some light on the authentic Gospels.
The apocryphal gospels presuppose the existence of the authentic Gospels for they are based on them and claim to supplement the information contained in them. The imitation is completed when Apostles or persons close to Christ are claimed as the authors of these works. Since the apocryphal gospels of the Second Century were based on the authentic Gospels, it follows that the authentic Gospels go back to an earlier period and were actually written by persons close to Christ. The composers of the apocryphal gospels, realizing that the authentic Gospels were well entrenched in Christian practice, probably knew that their own writings would never be accepted if they were not closely patterned after the authentic Gospels in content and authorship.
The presence of apocryphal gospels among the Christians of the Second Century made it imperative to find a basis on which to distinguish the true Gospels from the false gospels. In 1740, L. A. Muratori found in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy, an ancient document which proves that in the Second Century definite means were taken to insure that the apocryphal gospels were not confused with the authentic ones. This literary fragment contained a list of the writings which the Christians of about 165 A. D. were to regard as genuine. Its beginning and end are missing but it does say that Luke wrote the third authentic Gospel and John the fourth. If it had not been mutilated it would no doubt tell us that the other two were written by Matthew and Mark. It is important to note that the time of the appearance of this canon fits in perfectly with what we know of the state of the affairs during this period. It was in the Second Century when apocryphal writings began to appear in considerable numbers, and with their appearance there increased the danger that they might be confused with the genuine Gospels. To prevent this state of affairs from developing, this list of canon of the authentic Gospels was drawn up.
The unidentified author of the Muratorian fragment accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the “Acts of all Apostles” and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have St. Paul as author that are ostensibly addressed to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Of these he says they are “forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion.”
Of the General epistles, the author accepts the Epistle of Jude and says that two epistles “bearing the name of John are counted in the catholic church”, 1 and 2 Peter and James are not mentioned in the fragment. It is clear that the author assumed that the author of the Gospel of John was the same as the author of the First Epistle of John, for in the middle of discussing the Gospel of John he says “what marvel then is it that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, “What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled that have we written,” (1 John 1:1) which is a quotation from the First Epistle of John. It is not clear whether the other epistle in question is 2 John or 3 John. Another indication that the author identified the Gospel writer John with two epistles bearing John’s name is that when he specifically addresses the epistles of John, he writes, “the Epistle of Jude indeed, and the two belonging to the above mentioned John.” In other words, he thinks that these letters were written by the John whom he has already discussed, namely John the gospel writer. He gives no indication that he considers the John of the Apocalypse to be a different John from the author of the Gospel of John; indeed, by calling the author of the Apocalypse of John the “predecessor” of Paul, who, he assumes, wrote to seven churches (Rev 2–3) before Paul wrote to seven churches, he most likely has in mind the gospel writer, since he assumes that the writer of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness disciple who knew Jesus, and thus preceded Paul, who joined the church only a few years after Jesus’ death.
In addition to receiving the Apocalypse of John into the church canon, the author remarks that they also receive the Apocalypse of Peter, although “some of us will not allow the latter to be read in church.” However, it is not certain whether this refers to the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the quite different Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, the latter of which, unlike the former, was Gnostic. The author also includes the Book of Wisdom, “written by the friends of Solomon in his honor” in the canon.
The Church definitively teaches that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by the respective authors.
St. Irenaeus of Lyon was in a particularly favorable position to know the truth regarding the authorship of the Gospels. He was acquainted with the traditions of the East and the West. He was born in Asia Minor and spent some time in study there. He also knew the tradition of the West for he succeeded Pothinus (d. 177/178) as the bishop of Lyons. Besides this, he explicly states that he set out to discover personally the tradition of Rome. While St. Irenaeus was in Asia Minor, he was the disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna (155/156) who in turn was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. In Lyons he learned the ancient tradition of this region from Pothinus who was about 90 years old when he was martyred. The fruit of Irenaeus’ travel and study regarding the authorship of the Gospels is summed up in a passage of his work against the Gnostics.[2] In that passage he states:
“Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews and in their own language at the time when Peter and Paul were preaching the glad tidings in Rome and founding the church there. After departure, Mark also, the pupil and interpreter of Peter, has given us what has been preached. Luke, however, a companion of Paul, has chronicled in his work the Gospel as it was preached by that Apostle. After that, John, the disciple of the Lord, who was reclining on his breast, published his Gospel while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia” (Adversus Haereses III. 1. 1.).
Irenaeus then adds that this knowledge was the universal tradition of the Church (Adversus Haereses III. 11. 8.)
The student should also consider the testimony of Origin (c. 185-254/255) of Alexandria in Egypt regarding the authorship of the Gospels. Origin was one of the most well-educated men of the period. His interest and contributions to Scripture studies are well known. Furthermore, he was also in a favorable position to learn the ancient tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospels. He succeeded Clement as the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Clement, in turn, was taught by men of olden times who came from many parts of the Greek-speaking world. Origin’s testimony regarding the authorship of the Gospels is summarized in his first commentary of Matthew. In it he states that he, “learned from tradition concerning the four Gospels which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote according to Peter’s instructions…. Thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote for those who from the Gentiles came to believe, the Gospel that was preached by Paul. After them all, that according to John.”
The conclusion must be drawn from these important writers that the authors of the four accepted Gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The Historicity of the Gospels
The aim of this study is to discover whether or not the events which are recorded in these writing actually took place.
Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in a position to know the truth of the events which they recorded in their Gospels? The answer to this question we refer to the writers who were qualified to prove it. Many quotations from these early writers could be produced which are pertinent to the question under consideration, but limitations of space permit only two quotations for each Evangelist:
Matthew
“…of the Twelve Apostles, and seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity” (Church History [Eusebius], III. 26. 5.)
“…The First (Gospel) that was written was according to Matthew who was once a tax collector but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ” (Origin, Commentary on Matthew, Church History [Eusebius], VI.25. 3.).
Mark
“But the hearers of Peter…with every kind of exhortation besought Mark…whose Gospel is extant, seeing that he was Peter’s follower…to leave them a written statement of the teaching given them verbally…and they say that the Apostle…was pleased with the zeal and ratified the Scripture for study in the churches” (Church History [Eusebius], II. 15. 2).
“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark” (Church History [Eusebius], III. 39. 15.).
Luke
“But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles” (Church History [Eusebius], III. 24. 15.).
“For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul” (Church History [Eusebius], Adv. Marc. Bk. IV. 5).
John
“Then John the disciple of the Lord who had even rested upon His breast, himself also gave forth the Gospel” (Against Heresies [St. Irenaeus] (Book III, 1. 1.).
“Why need I speak of him who leaned back on Jesus’ breast, John who has left behind him one Gospel?” (Origin, Comm. In Ioa, Church History [Eusebius], Bk. VI 25. 9-10).
It is quite evident that the Evangelists were in ideal circumstances to know the truth of the events which they recorded in the Gospels. Matthew and John, being Apostles of Christ, were eye-witnesses of these events. Since Mark was a disciple of Peter the Apostle, his Gospel also has eye-witness value. And there is evidence that Luke, though not an Apostle, received his information from several sources close to Christ. One source was Paul who was intimately associated with the Apostles; other sources were certain eye-witnesses whose veracity he checked. (Luke 1:2).
[1] Asia Minor, a peninsula also called Anatolia, comprises most of the Asian part of modern Turkey and the Armenian highland. Most people there today speak Turkish. The seas surrounding Asia Minor are the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Because Asia Minor is between Christian Europe and Asia, many different cultures have lived there. Remnants (small parts) of these cultures are there today. Many great historical people, like the Hittites, Lydians Greeks, Persians, Armenians, Romans, Goths, Minoans, Byzantines and Turks, have lived in or occupied Asia Minor. The Roman Empire had a province called Asia, which was in Asia Minor. Later people started to call the entire continent Asia, so the peninsula Asia was called Asia Minor (little Asia).