Biblical & Theological Issues

by Matt Aernie –

Anyone who endeavors to study the gospels will be forced to wrestle with the problem of authorship. Specifically, the issue surrounding the authorship of the four canonical gospels is that they are technically anonymous, never explicitly mentioning the individual to whom they are ascribed. This being the case, should the canonical gospels be attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John or are there other worthy candidates? The following article will briefly examine some of the salient points from both the external and internal evidence of each gospel in order to determine if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually authored the gospels that bear their names.¹

The Gospel of Matthew

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE _____________
The most persuasive argument for Matthean authorship is presumably found in the external evidence. For instance, there are several early second century manuscripts, which ascribe the gospel to Matthew (a, B, D, L, W, ƒ1, ƒ13, Byz, L).² Additionally, several early church fathers such as Papias ³ (cited by Eusebius),⁴ I renaeus,⁵ Clement of Alexandria (cited by Eusebius),⁶ and Origen ⁷ all attest that Matthew was the author.

There is, however, considerable debate surrounding Papias’ testimony. According to Eusebius, Papias wrote, “Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated them as he was able.”⁸ While it is certainly not implausible that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic ⁹ and later translated into Greek it is highly unlikely for the following reasons. First, if Matthew depends upon Mark (which is the predominant consensus), then the verbal agreement between the two would imply that Matthew borrowed from Mark’s original Greek. Those who support Matthean priority would simply argue that “an Aramaic edition of Matthew preceded the publication of Mark, which served as the heart of our Greek Matthew.”¹⁰ However, because of the extremely high degree of verbal similarity it seems most reasonable that Matthew was dependent on Mark and therefore originally composed his gospel in Greek.¹¹ Second, it also seems unlikely that Matthew’s gospel was written in Aramaic based on the linguistic evidence. For instance, it is readily apparent that the Old Testament quotations throughout Matthew are by no means from a solitary or uniform text. In other words, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, “one might have expected that the Old Testament quotations would be either the translator’s own renderings of the Aramaic or standard quotations from the accepted Bible of the early church, the LXX.”¹² But the way Matthew formulates his Old Testament quotations clearly demonstrates a mixed text form, which would arguably be indicative of a Greek writer who knew the Semitic languages.¹³ Third, Carson and Moo observe that the entire gospel of Matthew does not read like a Greek translation. There are certainly Semitic idioms and features throughout the gospel but these are restricted to Jesus’ sayings rather than the narrative sections.¹⁴ Matthew’s gospel demonstrates that he had a firm command of the Greek language, which would have been necessary for a tax collector working for the Roman Empire. All the above arguments suggest that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Greek while utilizing Aramaic and possibly Latin sources.¹⁵

If Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Greek, was Papias wrong? In addition, it is the consensus among the church fathers that Matthew originally composed his gospel in Aramaic. Did the church fathers also mistakenly assume an Aramaic original? And if they were wrong about what language in which the gospel was first written could they also be wrong about the author? R.T. France has offered several reasonable options that suitably explain this difficult issue.¹⁶ First, France suggests that the church fathers believed that Jesus and His apostles spoke Aramaic as their native tongue and that Jesus more than likely taught in Aramaic. Consequently, the church fathers may have assumed that the apostles likewise continued Jesus’ pattern of teaching in Aramaic. Since Matthew was part of the Twelve, the church fathers likely assumed that the apostle faithfully continued Jesus’ use of Aramaic by writing his gospel in the same language. Second, France contends that because of the markedly Jewish character of the gospel the church fathers may have simply concluded that the gospel was certainly written in Aramaic. Third, France describes a “gospel” that was circulating in the early second century, which was written in Hebrew or Aramaic known as “the gospel according to the Hebrews.”¹⁷ The existence of this document suggests the possibility that Papias may have wrongly associated “the gospel according to the Hebrews” with the canonical Matthew leading to the theory that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. While these arguments may not be inculpable in every respect, they do arduously suggest that, “even if Papias or other early church fathers were wrong about the original language of Matthew’s gospel, this does not necessarily mean that they were mistaken regarding the identity of the author.”¹⁸ Therefore, the assertion of Papias and the evidence from the early church fathers that Matthew was the author of the gospel can reasonably be trusted.

This brief survey of the external evidence surrounding Matthean authorship has led to the following conclusions. First, there is substantial external evidence from early second century manuscripts ascribing authorship to Matthew. Second, there is unanimous attestation from early church fathers that Matthew the apostle was the author of the canonical gospel that bears his name. Third, although knowing whether or not Matthew originally composed his gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek is elusive, it is most reasonable to conclude that that apostle originally wrote his gospel in Greek borrowing from Mark.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE__________
While the internal evidence for the gospel of Matthew is not as pervasive as the external, there are a couple of features about the gospel that, when correlated with the external evidence, seem to demonstrate Matthean authorship. First, Mark and Luke both refer to Jesus calling Levi from the tax booth to be His disciple (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27). This same account is also found in Matthew 9:9 where, in that context, the apostle known as Levi was also called Matthew. In particular, this is analogous to the episode where Jesus informs Simon that he will now be called Peter, and in similar fashion was in all likelihood used by the author to indicate that Matthew and Levi were the same individual.¹⁹ Second, there are a several instances where the author demonstrates financial acumen (Matt 17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 22:15-22; 26:15;27:3-10; 28:11-15).²⁰ For example, when the Pharisees attempt to trap Jesus about whether or not they should pay Caesar’s poll tax, Jesus commands them to bring Him a coin. The term for “coin” used in both Mark and Luke is dēnarion, while Matthew also includes the term nomisma, which is a more specific term for the currency of that time (Matt 22:19; Mark 12:15; Luke 20:24).²¹ Use of this type of terminology, along with the several passages that mention fiscal issues, may suggest someone who was well versed in the area of economics, as Matthew the tax collector would have been.²²

Discerning the authorship for the gospel of Matthew is extremely challenging. The author nowhere identifies himself, making a certain conclusion impossible. However, with regards to the brief survey of the external and internal evidence offered above, it seems that a good argument can be established for Matthean authorship.
Consider also that Matthew, as a tax collector, would have been a strange choice to attribute to a Gospel aimed primarily at a Jewish audience unless that attribution was accurate. With a reasonable level of certainty, then, the conclusion can be made that Levi the tax collector who was also called Matthew became an apostle of Jesus Christ and authored the gospel that bears his name.

The Gospel of Mark

External Evidence________________________

Similar to Matthew, the external evidence for the gospel of Mark is substantial. Several manuscripts that attest Markan authorship include: a, B, A, D, L, W,Θ, ƒ13.²³ Moreover, there is abundant testimony from the church fathers that Mark was the author of his gospel. Such examples include: Papias (cited by Eusebius),²⁴ Irenaeus,²⁵ Clement of Alexandria (cited by Eusebius),²⁶ and Tertullian.²⁷ Several points of interest can be derived from the evidence of the church fathers. First, while Mark was not an eyewitness, he was a companion of the apostle Peter. Second, the writings of the church fathers clearly demonstrate that it was Peter’s testimony that served as Mark’s primary source for his gospel. In fact, Edwards contends, “[T]hat the Second Gospel was in many respects ‘Peter’s memoirs’ found, as far as we know, unanimous agreement in the early church.”²⁸ Third, the consensus among the church fathers was that Mark was a faithful interpreter of Peter’s preaching, which he later transcribed and distributed. Consequently, it seems that the overall view of the church fathers regarding Markan authorship is best summarized by Papias who wrote:

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.²⁹

The consensus of the external evidence found in both the manuscripts and church fathers overwhelming supports that the author of the canonical gospel was indeed a man known as Mark who was a companion of Peter. Furthermore, it was Mark’s association with the apostle’s teachings that served as the primary source for his gospel.

Internal Evidence___________________
If the external evidence substantiates that Mark was the author, the subsequent question would be, who was Mark? A brief survey of the internal evidence will arguably help to identify this individual. However, the portrait of Mark within the gospel itself is diminutive. More can be learned about the identity of John Mark throughout the New Testament than within the Gospel itself. Therefore, the following will briefly survey the portrait of Mark throughout the New Testament and conclude with some
observations found within the Gospel.

Traditionally, an individual known as John Mark is credited as being the author of the gospel. He is referenced several times throughout the New Testament particularly in the writings of Luke, Paul, and Peter.³⁰ Luke mentions that he was the son of a certain Mary in whose house the Jerusalem Christians met while Peter was imprisoned (Acts 12:12). John Mark also accompanied Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey, which he failed to complete (Acts 12:25). Mark’s failure caused discord between Paul and Barnabas as to whether or not he should accompany them on the second missionary journey, which subsequently resulted in their separation
(15:37-40). Later, however, John Mark’s relationship with Paul had apparently been repaired for the apostle specifically asks Mark to join him in Rome (2 Tim 4:11). Furthermore, John Mark is also mentioned as being with Peter while the apostle was in Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Consequently, it seems that the New Testament understands John Mark as an active, and possibly even well known, Christian in the early church, which may lend credence to his authorship of the gospel.

But what about the gospel itself? Is there any internal evidence that can substantiate John Mark as the author? A few observations are in order. First, Marks’ depiction of the Twelve is rather negative, more so than the other gospels. Such harsh portrayal of the apostles may be a direct result of Peter’s testimony to Mark. In fact, Blomberg argues that “no one but Peter could have authorized so negative a treatment of the disciples, given how quickly the early church began to exalt them, and Peter in particular.”³¹ Second, Peter is featured prominently throughout the gospel, which is understandable considering the close association between the apostle and John Mark.³² Third, there are references where Mark records Peter remembering, which may indicate that these even came from Peter himself while Mark was with him (e.g. 11:21;14:72).³³ Although the internal evidence regarding the authorship for the gospel of Mark is not conclusive, these points coupled with the evidence from the New Testament arguably demonstrate that the best candidate for authorship is John Mark.

In summary, the canonical gospel of Mark is anonymous. However, why would the early church fathers unanimously attribute the gospel to an individual who was not part of the Twelve, who had a suspect tract record in ministry, and was relatively unknown if there was a better and more prominent candidate? The apparent conclusion is because the early church truly believed that John Mark was the author of the gospel that bears his name.³⁴

The Gospel of Luke

External Evidence_______________

As with the other synoptics, there is formidable external evidence in support of Lukan authorship. Additionally, it is the consensus of contemporary scholarship that Luke is not only the author of the gospel but also the book of Acts.³⁵ Some of the manuscript evidence that ascribes authorship to Luke includes:P75,a, B, D, , W, Θ, ,E, y. here is also exuberant testimony from the church fathers that unanimously attest the gospel to Luke. Some of the church fathers include: Papias (cited by Eusebius),³⁶ Justin Martyr,³⁷ the Muratorian Canon, and Irenaeus.³⁸ In addition, the two heretics, Marcion and Heracleon, both provide evidence that they made use of the gospel and that Luke was the author. In fact, according to Tertullian, Marcion not only preferred Luke over the other gospels but he believed that Luke was a disciple of Paul and was the most faithful of the evangelists.³⁹ Moreover, Clement of Alexandria references Heracleon’s commentary on Luke even quoting his comments pertaining to 12:8.⁴⁰ Thus, the external evidence found in the manuscripts, church fathers, and even second century secular writers unanimously supports the conclusion that Luke was the author of his gospel. Furthermore, the author clearly states that he was not an eyewitness but thoroughly researched the events he recorded. Why would church history endorse authorship of an individual who was not a first hand witness to the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ if there was a more suitable candidate?
In fact, “no candidate other than Luke has ever been set forth in the history of the church as the author of this book.”⁴¹

Internal Evidence _______________

The prevailing view regarding the identity of Luke is that he was a Gentile physician and a companion of the apostle Paul (Col 4:14). Furthermore, it is widely held that Luke is responsible for producing both the gospel and the book of Acts.⁴² This is not only unanimously confirmed throughout church history but also the internal evidence arguably validates such a position. When examining the internal evidence regarding Lukan authorship several points of interest emerge. First, the author addressed the same individual in the prologues of both Luke and Acts (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). While this does not decisively prove that the same individual was responsible for both works, it is apt.⁴³ Second, the phrase prōtonlogon (former account) in Acts 1:1 arguably demonstrates that the author was providing a sequel to his first report.⁴⁴ Technically, prōtonlogon is translated “first account.” However, prōtos is typically used to indicate first in a sequence, which is arguably the intended meaning in the context. Specifically, Luke was reminding Theophilus of his first account, namely the gospel as opposed to his second account, namely Acts. Third, the arrangement of the prologue of Acts follows the practice of ancient authors who produced multiple volumes.⁴⁵ In other words, “such an arrangement, with a common preface in the first volume and then brief introductions to subsequent volumes, was not uncommon in the ancient world.”⁴⁶ Fourth, the evidence from the well known “we” passages seem to indicate that Luke accompanied Paul on various occasions (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). In these passages Luke diverges from his typical use of the third person plural (they) to first person plural (we). The natural reading of these passages suggests that the author experienced these events first hand.⁴⁷ Finally, Paul does mention that Luke is with him in Rome during the apostle’s first imprisonment there, which corresponds to the evidence from the book Acts (Col 4:14; Phm 24).⁴⁸ Thus, the internal evidence, though not absolutely conclusive, is rather suggestive and seems to assert that the individual known as Luke was the author of two volumes: his gospel and the book of Acts.

This brief survey of the external and internal evidence arguably provides sufficient validation that the best candidate for the authorship of both the gospel and the book of Acts is Luke the beloved physician. This has been the view throughout all of church history and was virtually unchallenged until the eighteenth century.⁴⁹

The Gospel of John

External Evidence_________________________
The gospel of John is also technically anonymous. However, congruent with the synoptics, there is ample external evidence that arguably validates that the author of the fourth gospel was the apostle John.⁵⁰ Manuscript evidence ascribing Johannine authorship is found in: P66, P75, a, B, C, D, L, W, Θ,y, f1. Some of the evidence derived from the early church fathers include: Papias (quoted by Eusebius),⁵¹ Irenaeus,⁵² Clement of Alexandria (quoted by Eusebius),⁵³ Theophilus of Antioch,⁵⁴ and Eusebius.⁵⁵ In fact, there is no evidence in the first three centuries of the early church of any Christian author attributing the fourth gospel to anyone other than the apostle John.⁵⁶ However, an ambiguous statement by Eusebius (quoting Papias) in the fourth century has led some to question apostolic authorship. According to Eusebius, Papias wrote:

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. ⁵⁷

The ambiguity in this statement pertains to the two “Johns” mentioned. In other words, is the first John different from the presbyter John? If so, then it is possible that the fourth gospel could have been authored be either one. However, it seems most likely that Papias was making a distinction between the eyewitnesses who had died in contrast to John who was still alive. Specifically, if John was the only living apostle at the time Papias wrote this statement, then it is likely that his former mention of John was intended to include the apostle as part of the Twelve while the later reference is meant to indicate that John was still alive serving as one of the elders in the church. Therefore, it seems best to interpret Papias’ reference to John and then John the Elder as referring to the same individual.⁵⁸ Understanding Papias’ statement in this manner along with the testimony of the church fathers demonstrates that “every piece of ancient external evidence, save one, agrees that that author was the apostle John, the son of Zebedee.”⁵⁹ Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence from church history is that the author of the fourth gospel was John the apostle.

Internal Evidence__________________
Identifying the author of the fourth gospel with absolute certainty is untenable. However, there are hints within the gospel that arguably evince Johannine authorship. First, the author of the fourth gospel refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This individual is not only an eyewitness but is closely associated with Jesus and is a notable character in the gospel (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20). Second, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is present at the Last Supper, which indicates he was part of the Twelve. In fact, “since the author never referred to himself by name, he cannot be any of the named disciples at the Last Supper: Judas Iscariot (13:2, 26-27), Peter (13:6-9), Thomas (14:5), Philip (14:8-9), or Judas the son of James (14:22).”⁶⁰ Third, the name John is never used in the gospel with the exception of referring to John the Baptist. The author never uses the phrase “the Baptist” but only refers to him as John. In other words, if the apostle John wrote to a specific community with whom he was acquainted and they knew that the gospel came from him, it is understandable, then, why he did not refer to himself by name or distinguish himself from John the Baptist.⁶¹ Regarding the title KATA IŌANNĒN (according to John), this would have likely been ascribed to the fourth gospel when it began to circulate with the synoptics for the purpose of delimiting it from the first three. Furthermore, “if the gospel were written by anyone else named John (e.g., John the elder), how could the author introduce the Baptist without any qualification and expect people not to confuse him with the apostle by the same name?”⁶² As a result of these various hints from the internal evidence, it seems most persuasive to conclude that the author of the fourth gospel identified as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is John the apostle. Absolute certainty regarding the authorship of the fourth gospel is unattainable. Nevertheless, the above overview concerning the external and internal evidence ostensibly provides ample verification that the most credible option is John the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve.

Conclusion_____________
There is much more that could be examined regarding the authorship of the four canonical gospels. Nonetheless, the intention here was to provide a concise survey of the prominent features from both the external and internal evidence to determine whether or not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the best candidates for authorship. While absolute certainty is elusive, the conclusion that seems most reasonable based on the data (primarily historical) derived from the external and internal evidence is that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did author the gospels that they are accredited with. Matt Aernie is Assistant Professor of Bible and Theology at Southeastern Bible College in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Forensic Language and the Day of the Lord Motif in Second Thessalonians 1 and the Effects on the Meaning of the Text (Wipf & Stock).

Notes
1More exhaustive discussions are found in: D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005); David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004); Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and The Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2009).
2See W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew 1-7, ICC (London: T & T Clark, 1997), 129 n90; David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 12.
3See Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassesment,” JETS 26/2 (June 1983) 181-191, who provides substantial evidence for an early date for Papias.
4Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16; 6.25.4. It should be noted that none of Papias’ writings are extant.
5Haer. 3.1.1.
6Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7.
7Comm. Matt. 1.
8Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16.
9See Carson and Moo, 143, who note that the same Greek word is used to refer to both languages.
10Carson and Moo, 143.
11See R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 63.
12Carson and Moo, 143.
13See France, 63.
14See Carson and Moo, 143-144.
15 See C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row: 1962), 219.
16See France, 64-65.
17See Carson and Moo, 146. There may have actually been three “gospels” in this period: “the gospel according to the Hebrews;” “the gospel of the Nazareans;” and “the gospel of the Ebionites.” Regarding these three “gospels,” Carson and Moo observe that “it is uncertain whether these titles refer to three separate books or two or more of
them refer to one book.”
18Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, 181.
19Ibid., 184. See also David Wenham and Steve Walton, A Guide to the Gospels and Acts, Exploring the New Testament, vol. 1 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 224.
20See Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 620.
21See BDAG 223, 676; L&N 6.75, 6.70.
22See Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, 184.
23For a discussion regarding the title of Mark see Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 64-84.
24Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15.
25Haer. 3.1.1.
26Eccl. Hist. 6.14.6-7.
27Marc. 4.5. For a more exhaustive listing of the testimony of the church fathers, see also Robert Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 3-4.
28James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 5.
29Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15.
30Acts 12:12, 25; 13:13; 15:37-39; Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Peter 5:13.
31Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2d ed. (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2009), 140.
32See Carson and Moo, 176.
33See Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, 234.
34See Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 140.
35For further discussion regarding the unity of Luke- Acts see: Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Settin of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1990), 30-33; David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 6-8; Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, rev. ed. (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), xiii.
36Eccl. Hist. 3.24.5-13.
37Dial. 103.19.
38Haer.3.1.1, 3.14.1. For a more exhaustive list of the church fathers see Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 5-6.
39See Marc. 4.2.
40See Strom. 4.9.
41Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, 261.
42See Hemer, 30-33; Peterson, 6-8; Talbert, xiii.
43See Mikeal C. Parsons, “Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke?” BR 17 (April 2001): 12-21, 54-55.
44See BDAG 892; L&N 60.46.
45See Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.2; 2.1; Philo,
46Peterson, 101. See also Darrell L. Bock, Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapdis: Baker Academic, 2007), 52; Arthur J. Droge, “Did ‘Luke’ Write Anonymously? Lingering at the Threshold,” in Apostelgeschichteim Kontextantiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie, ed. J. Frey, C. K. Rothschild and J. Schröter (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 495-518.
47See Carson and Moo, 291; Hemer, 312-334.
48Paul also mentions that Luke is with him during his second Roman imprisonment (2 Tim 4:11).
49See Carson and Moo, 291.
50See Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 22-41; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 6-9. Contra Richard Baukham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 358-471. Baukham contends that John the Elder rather than John the Apostle was the author of the gospel.
51Eccl. Hist. 3.39.4-5.
52Haer. 3.1.2.
53Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7.
54Autol. 2.22.
55Eccl. Hist. 3.24.5-13.
56See Blomberg, Historical, 25.
57Eccl. Hist. 3.39.4-5.
58See Blomberg, Historical, 27; Carson and Moo, 235; Köstenberger, 7 n17. Contra Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John 1-12 (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), xci-xcii; Randar Tasmuth, “Authority, Authorship, and Apostolicity as a Part of the Johannine Question: The Role of Papias in the Search for the Authoritative Author of the Gospel of John,” Connor J 33 (2007): 26-42.
59Blomberg, Historical, 23.
60Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, 296.
61See Blomberg, Historical, 30.
62Ibid.

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 12 No. 2 – Who Wrote the Bible?)