Quill pen writing on parchment

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the four Gospels of our New Testament.

For many centuries it has been widely held that the four Gospels in the New Testament were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the four men mentioned above.  However, through the centuries, much like today, there have been skeptics who would question the authorship of the Gospels in an effort to find some basis for their rejection of the Gospel of grace and the Bible as God’s inspired word.

This article was written with the intent of giving evidence for the authorship of each of the Gospels by using external evidence (i.e., manuscript evidence, tradition, testimony of church Fathers, etc.) and internal evidence (evidence from the Bible itself). It is hoped that the reader of this article will weigh the evidence presented here and make a clear judgment without prejudice or a predisposed bias.

What is the “Synoptic Problem”?

The problem stated: Before we begin our study of the authorship of the Gospels, however, it is necessary to discuss an apologetic difficulty dealing with the first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  These three Gospels are called the “synoptic Gospels” because they are so closely related in narrative and action.  The word “synoptic” means “to take a common view of something” and is used chiefly of the first three Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The problem arises when one considers the authorship of these three Gospels.  As Merrill C. Tenney says, “If the three synoptic Gospels are totally independent of each other in origin and development, why do they resemble each other so closely, even to the exact verbal agreement in some places?”1  Another scholar, Walter Dunnett, puts it in even a clearer light for us. He says, “How is it that the material in the first three books is in so many respects similar if the writings are independent of each other?  On the other hand, why are there such frequent divergences in the reports of Jesus’ ministry unless the writings are to some extent independent of each other?”2 To put it another way, how could these three Gospels written by three different men at three different times be so much alike, and how could these three Gospels that are so much alike have so many differences? The problem then is twofold. Why are the Gospels so different and yet why are they so alike? The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church summarizes this problem for us when it says:

“The first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they share a common outline of events as contrasted with the Fourth Gospel. Their basic similarity of structure, however, allows for considerable variation in the order of separate units of narrative. The similarity stretches not only to the considerable quantity of common material, but also to verbal agreement in much of the narrative. It is the combination of similarity and dissimilarity which constitutes the synoptic problem…”3

The solution suggested: So why indeed does the problem exist? If I may offer up a suggestion, I would say that the reason is that all the authors were writing about the life of one man/God, Jesus Christ. This accounts for the similarities.  The differences come from realizing that each of the three authors was writing at a different time to a different audience, each with a different purpose in mind.  Before we jump to any conclusions, however, let us see what the scholars have to say.  The theories concerning the solution to this problem proposed by the synoptic Gospels are many. For our purposes, however, it is really only necessary to discuss the three most widely supported theories, from which, after taking a good look at the evidence, we will draw our own conclusion.

The first theory we will discuss is the “Oral Tradition” theory. “This theory is the oldest of the three, since it seems to be the underlying assumption of the church Fathers. Papias regarded that Matthew recorded the sayings of Jesus in Aramaic… Mark, he said, was Peter’s scribe and interpreter who wrote accurately all that he remembered …Irenaeus (c. 170) followed the same line of thought, calling Luke’s Gospel a reproduction of Pauline preaching…”4  The “Oral Tradition” theory states that the “common basis of the Synoptics was entirely oral.”5

The second theory which is under study here is the “Mutual Interdependence” theory.  This theory suggests that two of the Gospels borrowed from the other as the main source for their material.6  “The most widely accepted theory is that Mark was the basic Gospel, which both Matthew and Luke used as the core for their Gospels.”7  This theory is difficult, however, because, as Merrill C. Tenney says, “…if, for instance, Matthew copied from Luke, why should he have created so different an order of events, or have omitted so much material that the latter contains?”8  In other words, if this theory is in fact the answer, why are the synoptic Gospels still so different?

The final theory we will look at in this article is the “Fragmentary Theory”.  This theory holds that the main basis for all documentary in the Gospels was neither oral, nor written, but was instead a great number of “short written narratives.”9  While this theory has great possibilities, to depend completely upon it would seem to be a bit naïve.  If taken at face value, this theory has the same difficulty that the “Mutual Interdependence” theory has, for if this is the case, why do the Gospels still differ in so much of the narrative.

Having looked at some of the key theories for the solution to the “Synoptic Problem”, we will endeavor to give a solution of our own. It is our contention that the “Synoptic Problem” can be solved when one considers five issues that directed the authorship of the three Synoptics. First, as each author wrote, he had a specific purpose in mind. Secondly, it is not only possible but probable that the written Gospels were preceded by an oral Gospel.  Thirdly, we must remember that each Gospels was written to a specific audience.  Fourthly, it is also probable that written sources were used to augment the oral tradition.10  Fifth, and most important, “the superintending ministry of the Holy Spirit lay behind all the labors of the human writers.  Peter testifies to this fact in relation to the writers of the Old Testament (2 Peter 1:20-21). Jesus told the disciples that the Holy Spirit, when He came, would ‘teach you all things and call to your remembrance all things which I have spoken unto you’ (John 15:26).11  The combination of all of these issues makes for both the similarities and dissimilarities of the Gospels we know of as Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Now that we have discussed the “Synoptic Problem” and proposed a solution, let us take a look at the evidence that supports the authorship of the Four Gospels.

Who Wrote Matthew?

When trying to determine who the author of a work is when he or she is not definitively stated, a scholar must look at two different areas of evidence. The first is the internal evidence; that is, what the Gospel itself says as to its authorship.

Internal Evidence: The internal evidence of the Gospel ascribed to Matthew goes a long way in its support of Matthew as its author. Matthew was a Jewish tax collector who became an apostle of Christ (Matt. 9:9).  It is these facts about him that, coupled with the writing style and words in the Gospel, help to show him to be the author of the first Gospel. “When Matthew received the call to follow Jesus, he was a publican, that is, a tax collector in Capernaum…As he labored in ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ he had to be at home in Greek as well as in Aramaic.  The Gospel according to Matthew shows that its author was, indeed acquainted with more than one language…”12  So how does the Gospel show this? Well, as H.C, Thiessen says, “…we note that he [Matthew] quotes or alludes to the Old Testament… that he quotes from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint…”13  If Matthew was the author, he would need to know both Aramaic and Greek which he would know if he was a publican.

Since Matthew was a tax collector, it would seem that his trade would somehow influence his writing.  This, then, is another evidence found in the script.  “This book has more references to money than any of the other three Gospels.  In fact, this Gospel includes three terms for money that are found nowhere else in the New Testament: ‘The two drachma tax’ (Matt. 17:24), ‘a four-drachma coin’ (Matt. 17:27), and ‘talents’ (Matt. 18:24).  Since Matthew’s occupation was tax collecting, he had an interest in coins and noted the cost of certain items.  The profession of tax collector would necessitate an ability to write and keep records.  Matthew obviously had the ability, humanly speaking, to write a book such as the First Gospel.”14

Finally, in discussing the internal evidence of the Gospel of Matthew, it is necessary to talk about what could be called the “Jewishness” of the Gospels. This Gospel makes more allusions to and quotes from the Old Testament than any other Gospel.   “Not only was Matthew an intelligent Jew; he was also deeply religious… As such we may well believe that he was thoroughly acquainted with both the Hebrew Old Testament and its Septuagint translation.  He was certainly well versed in Scriptures.  Hence, led by the Spirit, he was the kind of man who would be able to interpret Old Testament passages in such a manner that they would apply to new situations.  The Gospel according to Matthew tallies with this ability on the part of Matthew.”15

So we can see from the internal evidence presented from the Gospel itself that Matthew can and does easily fit the mold of the First Gospel.

External evidence: The external evidence consists mainly of tradition and the testimony of the early Church Fathers. “Matthew was not conspicuous among the apostles, and it would be strange for tradition to assign the Gospel to him if he did not write it.”16  And while you may wonder what tradition has to do with anything, it is important to remember that this is one of our best sources of information.  In regards to Matthew, it is said of tradition:  “Tradition is unanimous in pointing to Matthew as the author.  It never mentions anyone else…”17

Not only does tradition unanimously ascribe this Gospel to the work of Matthew, but the early Church Fathers do as well.  “This Gospel does not name its author.  However, from the early Church Fathers, beginning with Papias, a pupil of [the apostle] John, onward, it has been accepted as the work of Matthew…”18  You may say, “Yes, maybe a few of the Church Fathers thought so, but…” Well, consider what H.C. Thiessen says, “The early Church unanimously ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew… Irenaeus says:

‘Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.’  Irenaeus claims that he knew Polycarp in his early youth, and that Polycarp always taught the things he learned from the apostles.”19  Other Church Fathers who cited Matthew as the author of the Gospel were many.  They included Pseudo Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.20  “The earliest statement of the Church Fathers regarding its [Matthew’s] authorship is to be found in the writings of Papias in the second century. He stated that ‘Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.’”21

So as we can see here, external evidence (that of tradition and the early Church Fathers) holds to the ascription of “the Gospel according to Matthew” to Matthew the tax collector, the apostle of our Lord.  By now, it should be abundantly clear that Matthew wrote Matthew, and so we will press on and examine the evidence that supports the authorship of the Gospel of Mark by the one so named.

Who Wrote Mark?

External Evidence: Probably one of the greatest testimonies to the reliability of this canon of Scripture and its author can be found in the affirmation of the early Church Fathers.  Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, as quoted by Merrill C. Tenney, says: “And John the Presbyter also said this – Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded, he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as was before said, he was in the company of Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them, for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts.”22  Also, according to Clement of Alexandria, “Peter’s hearers urged Mark to leave a record of the doctrine which Peter had communicated orally, and that Peter authorized the Gospel to be read in churches.”23  H.C. Thiessen also says that Papias is quoted in saying that “Mark… wrote down accurately everything that he remembered without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ.”24  “Justin Martyr, a little later, refers to this Gospel as the ‘memoirs of him’ (i.e., Peter).”25  And again, “Irenaeus represents Peter and Paul as going to Rome and at preaching in the Imperial City; and then he adds: ‘After their departure (exodon), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.’ Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, all ascribe the second Gospel to Mark… the evidence for the Markan authorship is early and unanimous.”26  Finally, William Hendricksen sums up for us our discussion of the external evidence for the authorship of the Gospel of Mark when he says, “There is, therefore, no justification whatsoever for denying the verdict of tradition, namely, that it was John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, who wrote the shortest of the four widely recognized Gospels.

The evidence spans several centuries, from Eusebius all the way back to Papias.  It comes from every region: From Asia, Africa, and Europe; that is, from the East (Papias of Hieropolis, Eusebius of Caesarea); the South (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage); and the West (Justin Martyr and the author of the Muratorian fragment of Rome).  Sometimes two regions are represented by one witness: the East and the West (Irenaeus of Asia Minor, Rome, and Lyons); the South and the East (Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea). Orthodox and heterodox, ancient Greek texts and early versions add their weight to the same conclusion.”27

In conclusion, not only do ancient manuscripts such as the Muratorian Fragment of Rome and the Didache back up Markan authorship, but the testimonies of the early Church Fathers do also.

Internal Evidence: The internal evidence for the ascription of the Gospel of Mark to Mark is far less than the external evidence, but is nonetheless very applicable to our discussion. While not abundant, it is in complete agreement with all of the external evidence we have already discussed. Four specifics, three if categorized, boldly proclaim Mark to be the author of the second Gospel. The first two deal with two passages in Mark. One is peculiar to Mark. It is the story in Mark 14:51-52 about the young man who followed Christ out of the house where the Last Supper was held. It is found in none of the other Gospels and as Thiessen says, it “gains significance if it was Mark; he might want to indicate his personal contact with Jesus…”28  Since this is peculiar to Mark, it may show that Mark wanted to identify himself with the Gospel. The second categorical specific it the detail with which the author of Mark describes the room in which the Last Supper was held. “The guest room in which Jesus ate the Last Supper may have been his [Mark’s] mother’s home.”29  The significance of this is seen when we realize that it was at Mark’s mother’s home that Christians in Jerusalem met and that it was here that Peter first went after his escape from prison.30,31  This would make Mark acquainted with the early Church leadership such as Peter, Matthew, and John.  Finally, there is a textual similarity between Peter’s sermon in Acts 10:36-43 and the Gospel of Mark that shows the sermon to be a sort of outline for the greater detailed and more vivid Gospel account.32

So it is clear that the internal evidence is in harmony and in fact supports the external evidence for the authorship of the Gospel according to Mark by John Mark.

Who Wrote Luke?

As with the other three Gospels, there are two aspects, or categories if you will, of evidence supporting the authorship of the Gospel of Luke by Luke. In our discussion of Luke, we will look first at the internal evidence and then at the external evidence.

Internal Evidence: The main source of internal evidence favoring Lukan authorship for this Gospel comes in a comparison between the book of Acts and this Gospel.  “The identity of the author depends upon the relation of the Third Gospel to the book of Acts.”33  To get a clear picture of this relationship, we need to look at three separate areas where this Gospel and the book of Acts are alike.  The first area is in the introduction of each book.  “A comparison of Luke 1:1-4 with Acts 1:1-2 (‘The first account I composed, Theophilus’, etc.) clearly indicates that whoever it was that wrote Acts also wrote the Third Gospel.”34  This needs no expounding, for the interested reader is more than welcome to check his Bible for himself.  The second area in which we find so much alike in Luke and Acts is in the use of medical language and keen interest in sickness and health that is not found in any of the other Gospels.  “The medical language in both the Third Gospel and Acts and the writer’s interest in sickness and the sick suggest that the author was a physician.  Inasmuch as Luke is called the ‘beloved physician’ (Col. 4:14) and inasmuch as he accompanied Paul for a considerable length of time, we naturally conclude that he [Luke] is the author of the Third Gospel.”35  But you may wonder how this fact in any way proves that Luke was the author. “…The language of Luke and Acts does not of itself prove that the author was a physician.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that the language and terminology of Luke and Acts are of such a nature that they corroborate in a striking manner the tradition that the author was Luke the physician.”36 (underline mine)

So far in our discussion of the internal evidence for the authorship of the Gospel of Luke, we have discussed the comparison between Luke and the book of Acts.  It would therefore seem to be the most logical step to see what there is concerning the Lukan authorship for the book of Acts.  “Therefore, once we discover the identity of the author of Acts, our problem is solved.”37  So, if we know who wrote Acts, we can know who wrote the Third Gospel. On this count, F.F. Bruce says, “The external evidence for Lukan authorship goes back to the early decades of the second century,… while the original text of Luke-Acts does not reveal the author’s name, the belief in Lukan authorship found its way at an early date into one or two recensions of the text of Acts… The evidence of the New Testament writings in general, and of Luke-Acts in particular, does not conflict with the external evidence, and in fact, the work itself shows signs of having been composed by someone who was from time to time a companion to Paul and who traveled with him to Rome, where we know Luke to have been in his company.”38

So the evidence says that Luke wrote Acts.  If Luke wrote Acts, and whoever wrote Acts wrote the Third Gospel, then it stands to reason that Luke wrote “the Gospel of Luke”.  Not only does the internal evidence of comparison with Acts prove that Luke wrote “the Gospel of Luke”, but the testimony of the Church Fathers, the external evidence, does also.

External Evidence: “About the year A.D. 400 Jerome wrote: ‘Luke, a medical man from Antioch, was not ignorant of the Greek language.  He was a follower of Paul and a companion in all his travels and he wrote the Gospel.’”39  Right from the start we see that at least this Church Father believed Luke to be the author of the Third Gospel.  Was he the only one, or did others feel the same?  At the beginning of the fourth century the church historian Eusebius wrote: “Luke, by race an Antiochian, and a physician by profession, had long been a companion of Paul, and had more than a casual acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.  In two God-breathed books, namely, the Gospel and the Acts, he left us examples of the art of soul-healing which he had learned from them.”40  The list of Church Fathers that held Luke as the author of the Third Gospel goes back as early as the second and third centuries A.D.  Origen said, “…and thirdly the Gospel according to Luke [was written].  He wrote for those who from the Gentiles [had come to believe], the Gospel was praised by Paul.”41  He wrote this in the third century.  Even earlier than this, in the second century after Christ, Tertullian is quoted as saying: “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith in us, while the apostolic men, Luke and Mark, renew it afterward.”42  Finally we see what Irenaeus says.  He is the earliest writer mentioned here.  Irenaeus was a pupil, or disciple, of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of the apostle John. “He writes, ‘Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him [Paul]’”43  The testimonies of the Church Fathers still bears loud testimony to the fact of Lukan authorship of the Third Gospel.

“Tradition unanimously affirms this author to be Luke. This is attested by the early heretic Marcion (who died c. A.D. 160; Luke was the only Gospel in his canon), the Muratorian Fragment (a list of the books accepted as belonging to the New Testament; it is usually held to express Roman opinion at the end of the second century), the anti-Marcionite Prologue of Luke…, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and others.”44

The evidence, both internal and external, make it plain. Luke wrote Acts; the writer of Acts wrote “the Gospel of Luke”, and the testimony of the Church Fathers upholds this – the Gospel according to Luke was written by Luke.

Who Wrote John?

Since, in my opinion, the Gospel according to John is the Gospel best attested to of the four by internal evidence, we will begin with that evidence in our look at the authorship for the Fourth Gospel.

Internal Evidence: “The author of the Fourth Gospel is represented as one who belongs to the same race, stock, and family as does his ‘hero’.  He is introduced as a contemporary and eyewitness (Jn. 21:24; cf. 1 John 1:1-4).  He belongs not only to the wide circle of the Master’s followers, but according to tradition he is one of the twelve, and within that group of twelve he is one of the three (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33) …the author is here regarded as one of two earliest disciples… And of these two, he is the one who represents himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (Jn. 13:23).”45  The Bible is the best source for narrowing down the authorship of the Gospel.    In the passages listed above (i.e., Mark 5:37; 9:2, 14:33), we see that John, the supposed author of the Gospel, was one of the inner three.  As William Hendriksen states further in his commentary, “…He is introduced as a contemporary and eyewitness…”  In other words, the author of the Gospel wrote with the flavor of one who experienced all that he wrote about. Since it is widely held that the author of the Gospel known as John was one of the inner three (i.e., Peter, James and John), we will follow that line of argument. “The ‘disciple’ in [John] 21:24 was ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (Jn. 21:20).  …From Jn. 21:7, it is certain that the disciple whom Jesus loved was one of the seven persons mentioned in Jn. 21:2 (Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the two sons of Zebedee, and two unnamed disciples) …‘The disciple whom Jesus loved’ was seated next to the Lord at the Last Supper, and Peter motioned to him (Jn. 13:23-24) …He must have been one of the twelve since only they were with the Lord at the Last Supper (cf., Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14) …In the Gospel, John was closely related to Peter and thus appears to be one of the inner three (cf., John 20:2-10; Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33).  Since James, John’s brother died in the year AD 44, he was not the author (Acts 12:2).”46  Since the disciple whom Jesus loved was one of the three (cf., John 20:2-10), since he is mentioned in the Gospel with Peter and claims to be the author (cf., John 21:20-24), and since the other member of the three, James, died before the Gospel was ever written, that leaves only one member – John.

So if we were only to look at the internal evidence, it would be clear that John is the author of the Gospel. However, rather than leave any loose ends untied in the mind of the still skeptical reader, we will now examine the equally abundant external evidence.

External Evidence: Although many writers and writings such as Ignatius, Tatian, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, or the Epistle of Barnabas and the Muratorian Fragment, all make allusions to the Gospel and letters of John (it is generally admitted that for one to recognize 1 John one must recognize the Gospel also), it is Irenaeus who gives us the best evidence concerning the Fourth Gospel.  “The external evidence for the early date and Apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel is as great as that for any book in the New Testament… From Irenaeus on, the evidence becomes clear and full.”47  The reason that Irenaeus’ testimony should carry so much weight for the student in this area of study is because he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the man in question, the Apostle John. “Polycarp (ca. AD 69 – ca. AD 155) spoke of his contact with John.  Irenaeus (ca. 130 – ca. 200), the bishop of Lyons, heard Polycarp and testified that ‘John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned on His breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia.’  Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other later Fathers support this tradition.  Eusebius was specific that Matthew and John of the apostles wrote the two Gospels which bear their specific name.”48  And further it is said that, “Irenaeus is the chief witness.”49  Clement of Alexandria also stated that John wrote what he called a “spiritual Gospel.”  “The early Church Fathers agree with this statement of authorship.”50

The evidence for the Gospel according to John is abundant, both externally and internally. Not only do the Church Fathers hold that he was the author of the work, but also does the Word of God itself.

It is hoped that after reading this discourse on the authorship of the four Gospels that any reader will be able to clearly see the facts. To say that just because we were not there, we cannot know, allows all of history to slip into a void from which it can never be retrieved. The authorship of the Four Gospels is our New Testament are as clearly attested to as any piece of classical antiquity which graces the shelves of libraries world-wide. Any unbiased reader will be able to accept that the facts are that, facts, and be able to accept the truths therein.

Works Cited

  1. Tenney, Merrill C., New Testament Survey, p. 133.
  2. Dunnett, Walter, An Outline of New Testament Survey, p. 19.
  3. Douglas, J.D. ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 947.
  4. Tenney, p. 134.
  5. Thiessen, H.C., Introduction to the New Testament, p. 106.
  6. Tenney, p. 135.
  7. Douglas ed., p. 948.
  8. Tenney, pp. 135-136.
  9. Thiessen, p. 105.
  10. Dunnett, pp. 19-20.
  11. Ibid., p. 20
  12. Hendriksen, William, New Testament Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 95.
  13. Thiessen, p. 132.
  14. Walvoord, John F. and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 15.
  15. Hendriksen, p. 96.
  16. Thiessen, p. 132.
  17. Hendriksen, p. 96.
  18. Halley’s Bible Handbook, p. 413.
  19. Thiessen, p. 131.
  20. Ibid., p. 131.
  21. Dunnett, p. 24.
  22. Tenney, p. 155.
  23. Ibid., p. 155.
  24. Thiessen, p. 140.
  25. Ibid., p. 140.
  26. Ibid., p. 141.
  27. Hendricksen, William, New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Mark, p. 12.
  28. Thiessen, p. 141.
  29. Thiessen, p. 141.
  30. Dunnett, p. 32.
  31. Thiessen, p. 142.
  32. Dunnett, p. 32.
  33. Tenney, p. 171.
  34. Hendriksen, William, New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke, p. 3.
  35. Thiessen, p. 152.
  36. Geldenhuys, Norval, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, p. 20.
  37. Hendriksen, p. 3.
  38. Bruce, F.F., The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Acts, p. 19.
  39. Hendriksen, p. 7.
  40. Ibid., p. 7.
  41. Ibid., p. 7.
  42. Ibid., p. 7.
  43. Ibid., p. 7.
  44. Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 15.
  45. Hendriksen, William, New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of John, pp. 3-4.
  46. Walvoord and Zuck, p. 267.
  47. Thiessen, pp. 162-163.
  48. Walvoord and Zuck, p. 267.
  49. Pfeiffer, Charles F., Harrison, Everett F., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1071.
  50. Dunnett, p. 46.

By D. Wallace


Let us know what you think.