Why do the gospels of Matthew and John refer to themselves in the third person?

[BNR32FAN]

I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I haven’t noticed this before but it’s just recently been brought to my attention that both Matthew and John are mentioned in the third person in their respective gospel accounts. I’m curious why they might do this. Anyone have any ideas?

 

[Ligurian]

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name.

Jesus says He didn't come to speak of Himself, but of the Father. John must've thought that was a good idea.

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Here John seems to think that who writes to the churches matters. John 17:20

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @BNR32FAN, here's something that I agree with from Dr. Carson concerning the Apostle John's choice to keep his identity veiled in his Gospel.

If we wonder why the beloved disciple chooses this form of anonymity, two answers are suggested by the emphases of the Fourth Gospel. Just as ‘the beloved disciple’, if a self-designation, implies not arrogance (as if to say ‘I am more loved than others’) but a profound sense of indebtedness to grace (‘What a wonder—that I should be loved by the incarnate Word!’), so the silence as to the identity of the beloved disciple may be a quiet way of refusing to give even the impression of sharing a platform with Jesus. ‘Like the other John at the very beginning of the Gospel, the first witness to Jesus, he is only a voice. The identity of the speaker does not matter: what matters is the witness that he gives’ (Newbigin, p. xiii). At the same time, the author thus serves as a model for his readers: becoming a Christian means a transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, such that he receives the glory. ~Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 473).
​

Interestingly, the Apostle John finally uses a first person pronoun in the very last verse of his Gospel .. John 21:25. This, as far as I know, never happens in the Gospel of Matthew, where the Apostle's references to himself (in the third person) are less personal/less descriptive than those of the Apostle John in his Gospel.

Interesting topic I've gotta go right now, but I'll be back (Dv), and I look forward to discussing this further/to hearing what you and others have to say.

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - the Bible is an interestingly different Book in many ways, not the least of which concerns the facts surrounding its authorship/Authorship.
.

 

[HTacianas]

I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I haven’t noticed this before but it’s just recently been brought to my attention that both Matthew and John are mentioned in the third person in their respective gospel accounts. I’m curious why they might do this. Anyone have any ideas?

I've heard before that John did not name anyone who was still alive at the time in order to protect them from persecution. I don't know for certain if that is the case. I've heard the same about the young man mentioned at Mark 14:51. Some say that the young man was in fact John.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hello @BNR32FAN, here's something that I agree with from Dr. Carson concerning the Apostle John's choice to keep his identity veiled in his Gospel.

If we wonder why the beloved disciple chooses this form of anonymity, two answers are suggested by the emphases of the Fourth Gospel. Just as ‘the beloved disciple’, if a self-designation, implies not arrogance (as if to say ‘I am more loved than others’) but a profound sense of indebtedness to grace (‘What a wonder—that I should be loved by the incarnate Word!’), so the silence as to the identity of the beloved disciple may be a quiet way of refusing to give even the impression of sharing a platform with Jesus. ‘Like the other John at the very beginning of the Gospel, the first witness to Jesus, he is only a voice. The identity of the speaker does not matter: what matters is the witness that he gives’ (Newbigin, p. xiii). At the same time, the author thus serves as a model for his readers: becoming a Christian means a transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, such that he receives the glory. ~Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 473).
​

Interestingly, the Apostle John finally uses a first person pronoun in the very last verse of his Gospel .. John 21:25. This, as far as I know, never happens in the Gospel of Matthew, where the Apostle's references to himself (in the third person) are less personal/less descriptive than those of the Apostle John in his Gospel.

Interesting topic I've gotta go right now, but I'll be back (Dv), and I look forward to discussing this further/to hearing what you and others have to say.

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - the Bible is an interestingly different Book in many ways, not the least of which concerns the facts surrounding its authorship/Authorship.
.

I don’t know, to me it seems that an eyewitness testimony would give more credibility to the validity of the gospel rather than the viewpoint of hearsay. Also it’s not only the gospel of John but the gospel of Matthew as well that is written in this manner. It seems strange to me that in the epistles none of the authors had any problems with writing in the first person. One explanation that I’ve read suggests that perhaps the authors wanted a more textbook style format rather than a first hand experience format which seems to make the most sense to me at this point. Sort of like an encyclopedia approach recording the facts that took place rather than an eyewitness account. If this were the case it would explain why the authors refer to themselves in the third person.

 

[pescador]

I don’t know, to me it seems that an eyewitness testimony would give more credibility to the validity of the gospel rather than the viewpoint of hearsay. Also it’s not only the gospel of John but the gospel of Matthew as well that is written in this manner. It seems strange to me that in the epistles none of the authors had any problems with writing in the first person. One explanation that I’ve read suggests that perhaps the authors wanted a more textbook style format rather than a first hand experience format which seems to make the most sense to me at this point. Sort of like an encyclopedia approach recording the facts that took place rather than an eyewitness account. If this were the case it would explain why the authors refer to themselves in the third person.

Or it could just be a style of writing. I don't think it needs to be overanalyzed.

 

[privatepop]

God is the author of the Bible. Not Matthew or anyone else who God used to get it written down.
It is believed by many that the book of John was actually penned by Lazarus and not John. There's a good study that Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved. https://thedisciplewhomjesusloved.c...iple-Bible-study-printable-8.5x11-60pgs-1.pdf

 

[Clare73]

God is the author of the Bible. Not Matthew or anyone else who God used to get it written down.
It is believed by many that the book of John was actually penned by Lazarus and not John. There's a good study that Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved. https://thedisciplewhomjesusloved.c...iple-Bible-study-printable-8.5x11-60pgs-1.pdf

They are presenting obective accounts. . .objective means no I, me, we.

But since they are persons involved in the record, they must include themselves.

 

[DragonFox91]

I've heard before it was a cultural style. Historical biographies weren't written in first person back then, even if the writer was a witness.

 

[I John 2:17]

I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I haven’t noticed this before but it’s just recently been brought to my attention that both Matthew and John are mentioned in the third person in their respective gospel accounts. I’m curious why they might do this. Anyone have any ideas?

In the case of the Gospel of John, it's almost certainly because John didn't actually pen it, but rather a close follower of his, who revered him, and wrote down John's accounts to him from memory, after John died.

The key to understand this is the last few verses of the gospel, where Jesus tells Peter, "If I want John to remain until I come, what is that to you." And the writer of the gospel is careful to emphasize immediately afterwards that Jesus did not actually say that John would not die.

The apostle John lived an extremely long time. Couple that with Jesus' implying that John might actually live until he returned, which John undoubtedly conveyed to his followers, would mean his actual death would require some commentary.

And that is why the gospel of John was actually written -- in response to the extremely aged John finally dying. Whereas all the other gospels have Jesus referring to his Second Coming when he was before the Sanhedrin, talking about returning in the clouds and so forth, the gospel of John completely omits all that, and instead has Christ praying regarding his disciples, "I do not pray that you take them out of the world..." [etc.] So the gospel was written for solace and encouragement in light of the realization that Christ's return might not be imminent.

It's perfectly clear that the epistle of 1 John was actually written by John, and that he thought he might actually live until Christ's return. He says, "Little children it is the last hour" and it says it's because some people left the church. It's perfectly well known he was extremely old when he wrote 1 John -- he even loses track of how he's contradicting himself, e.g. saying in the first part of the book, "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves..." and then in the end he's saying, "He who is in Christ cannot sin..." Even if those two diametrically opposed themes, which he develops at length, can be reconciled, he doesn't even attempt to do so, very possibly because he lost track of what he said previously. There are many other indications of this in the epistle.

So why would John be thinking Christ's return was imminent in 1 John, and then completely ignore it in the gospel of John -- if he actually wrote it. The answer is -- he didn't, a follower of his did.

There are other indications that the Gospel of John was not written down by an eyewitness. Only the gospel of John doesn't have Jesus telling the apostles, "I will drink no more wine until a drink it anew in the kingdom of God". And then only the gospel of John has Christ unambiguously drinking wine on the cross. There are other examples like this.

So that takes care of John. As far as Matthew -- he was a despised tax collector -- that was the default view of them in Palestine. So he probably wasn't inclined to make a big deal out of his own person. And he was a lesser apostle, in the sense that he wasn't in that select group that was closest to Christ -- Peter James John and Andrew, who are constantly mentioned in the gospels. Of all the apostles listed when they were first chosen, how many are mentioned by name at all subsequently -- maybe half of them? And just think about Matthew just arbitrarily deciding to insert the pronoun "I" throughout the book -- and just to overemphasize that he personally witnessed it all.

 

[pescador]

God is the author of the Bible. Not Matthew or anyone else who God used to get it written down.
It is believed by many that the book of John was actually penned by Lazarus and not John. There's a good study that Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved. https://thedisciplewhomjesusloved.c...iple-Bible-study-printable-8.5x11-60pgs-1.pdf

"It is believed by many..." Where do you get this information? Any time somebody starts a sentence like that, with no supporting information, it's a "red flag" to me.

Regarding the OP, writing in the third person was the style of writing that was common in those times.