I often hear the claim by skeptics and atheists that the New Testament gospels are anonymous and therefore cannot be trusted since we do not know where they came from and who wrote them. Tradition holds that the four gospels of the New Testament are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, is there any evidence for this? Can we really know the true providence of these gospels and be confident of their authorship being attributed to the disciples and close followers of Jesus? In the following, I will argue for the traditional authorship of the gospels, and I will also show that it is highly unreasonable from the position of the skeptic to claim that there is no possible way that we can know who wrote the gospels through the available data that we currently have in the field of New Testament scholarship.
To begin, I would like to take a brief look at what the theory of Anonymous Gospels entails before examining the various lines of evidence for traditional authorship of the four canonical gospels. In his book How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman suggests four components comprising the theory of Anonymous Gospels. First, Ehrman suggests that the gospels themselves were published without any headings or titles.[1] Because the gospels were written without titles and the gospel writers did not identify themselves in the body of texts, Ehrman concludes that we simply have no way of knowing who wrote them without some identifying marker.
Secondly, Ehrman claims that the gospels themselves circulated within the first Christian communities for almost a century before having any indication of a title attached to them.[2] There are a couple of reasons as to why Ehrman thinks that this is the case. He argues that “the followers of Jesus, as we learn from the New Testament itself, were uneducated lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews from Palestine. These books were not written by people like that. The authors were highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation. They probably wrote after Jesus’s disciples had all, or almost all, died.”[3] From the outset, it seems difficult to consider the notion that, as copies of the gospels were being written, no one would think to add any titles so that there would be some indication as to where each gospel manuscript had originated from. Later, I will address why I think it is unlikely that all of the gospel writers were simply reduced to being illiterate fisherman that were incapable of authoring any type of gospel detailing what Jesus both said and did.
Thirdly, Ehrman argues that only after a significant period of time were the titles added to the existing manuscripts in existence. What was the reason for the addition? Ehrman states, “There’s not much mystery about why later Christians would want to claim that the authors were in fact companions of Jesus or at least connected with apostles: that claim provided much-needed authority for these accounts for people wanting to know what Jesus was really like.”[4] In other words, to make these documents compelling, Ehrman surmises that they were given titles that were associated with people that new Jesus said and did, or, at the very least, people who were companions of individuals who knew of what Jesus said and did, to make these documents more authoritative.
The last claim to note from Ehrman is that because the gospels themselves were originally anonymous, in Ehrman’s mind, it follows that they could not be written by eyewitnesses. Thus, the gospels were the product of oral stories that grew and became more fanciful over time, leading to what we now have today.
Having established Ehrman’s claims and reasoning for why he thinks the gospels themselves are anonymous, I will now turn to addressing the evidence for why we can know beyond a reasonable doubt who wrote the gospels and why we can trust them. The following evidence that will be examined will include the manuscript evidence and the consensus of early Church Fathers. I will also provide some closing thoughts based on the evidence surveyed.
What does the manuscript evidence of the gospels tell us about who the documents themselves are attributed to? As the claim goes, many skeptics will often state that the earliest manuscripts do not contain any reference to who wrote them. However, when we examine the earliest Greek manuscripts of the gospels, we find them all being attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Consider the following chart detailing the earliest dates of the extant gospel manuscripts.
| The Manuscript Evidence: No Anonymous Copies | ||
| Gospel Title | Earliest Greek Manuscript | Date |
| Gospel according to Matthew | Papyrus 4 | 2nd Century |
| Gospel according to Matthew | Papyrus 62 | 2nd Century |
| According to Matthew | Codex Sinaiticus | 4th Century |
| According to Matthew | Codex Vaticanus | 4th Century |
| [Go]spel according to Mat[th]e[w] | Codex Washingtonianus | 4th-5th Century |
| Gospel according to Matthew | Codex Alexandrinus | 5th Century |
| Gospel according to Matthew | Codex Ephraemi | 5th Century |
| Gospel according to Matthew [End] | Codex Benzae | 5th Century |
| According to Mark | Codex Sinaiticus | 4th Century |
| According to Mark | Codex Vaticanus | 4th Century |
| Gospel according to Mark | Codex Washingtonianus | 4th-5th Century |
| [Gosp]el according to Mark | Codex Alexandrinus | 5th Century |
| Gospel according to Mar[k] [End] | Codex Ephraemi | 5th Century |
| Gospel According to Luke | Papyrus 75 | 2nd-3rd Century |
| According to Luke | Codex Sinaiticus | 4th Century |
| According to Luke | Codex Vaticanus | 4th Century |
| Gospel according to Luke | Codex Washingtonianus | 4th-5th Century |
| Gospel according to Luke | Codex Alexandrinus | 5th Century |
| Gospel According to Luke | Codex Benzae | 5th Century |
| Gospel according to [J]ohn | Papyrus 66 | Late 2nd Century |
| Gospel according to John | Papyrus 75 | 2nd-3rd Century |
| According to John | Codex Sinaiticus | 4th Century |
| According to John | Codex Vaticanus | 4th Century |
| According to John [End] | Codex Washingtonianus | 4th-5th Century |
| Gospel according to John [End] | Codex Alexandrinus | 5th Century |
| Gospel according to John | Codex Benzae | 5th Century |
Pitre, Brant, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (New York: Penguin House LLC, 2016), 17.
Surveying this early manuscript evidence a couple of things stand out. Probably the most important thing that stands out is that among all of the Greek manuscripts that exist, not a single one is anonymous. This is because the so-called anonymous copies of the four canonical gospels simply do not exist or are, at the very best, have never been found. When New Testament scholars try to reconstruct what the original New Testament gospels said, it is vitally important that they go back to the earliest surviving copies to observe how they were written. Another crucially important point is that the titles themselves are observable on the oldest surviving gospel manuscripts. In other words, when we look at the oldest, which indeed is the earliest manuscripts, we find “According to X” or “Gospel according to X.” A specific example of this drawing from the above chart would be Papyrus 75, where the Greek title reads, εὐαγελλίον κατα Λοκαν, The Gospel according to Luke. Another example of this would be Papyrus 62, where again the Greek title reads, εὐαγελλίον κατα Μαθθαιον, The Gospel according to Matthew. This keen observation is very important because it demonstrates that in the earliest copies of the gospels that we possess, we have them being attributed to a certain individual. As Brant Pitre notes, “In short, the earliest copies of the four Gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is absolutely no manuscript evidence—and thus no actual historical evidence—to support the claim that ‘originally’ the gospels had no titles.”[5]
Having looked at the earliest manuscript evidence for the New Testament Gospels, we turn now to the evidence of the Early Church Fathers. In examining what the early church fathers had to say about the origins of each of the four New Testament gospels, we find that virtually all of them attributed the four gospels to their traditional authors. There is not a single Church father who subjects themselves to the claim that they were the product of anonymous authors. This is significant in that the Church Fathers’ unanimity corroborates the earliest manuscript evidence that we have pertaining to the gospels themselves. For the sake of clarity, I will detail some of the specifics as to what the Church Fathers had to say about each of the New Testament gospels. The early church father Papias of Hierapolis, as recorded by the church historian Eusebius, states, “Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best as he could.”[6] Eusebius also records in his history of the Church Irenaeus and his writings regarding the authorship of the gospels. He writes, “Matthew composed a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there.”[7] From these two independent statements, it is clear that these two early church fathers affirmed traditional authorship of the New Testament Gospels. Nowhere do we find in their statements them affirming some unknown authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.
When we look at what the early Church Fathers stated about Mark, we find some interesting observations. Concerning Mark Papias’ states,
“The Presbyter used to say this also: ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasions demanded, without giving a systematic arrangement to the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark did not err in writing down some things just as he recalled them. For he had one overriding purpose: to omit nothing that he had heard and to make no false statements in his account.”[8]
Peter was one of Jesus’ closest followers alongside James and John. He had been privy to many significant events in the ministry of Jesus, like the Transfiguration. Thus, what we find in Papias’s writings is that Mark’s gospel is based on Peter’s memory and was written to preserve the accuracy of what was relayed to him. Finally, Papias affirms the trustworthiness of Mark’s gospel in that everything that he recorded was free of any “false statements.” In other words, Mark, in writing his gospel, was able to fact-check everything from someone who had been an eyewitness to the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly, Papias does see that Mark’s recording of information from Peter had not been in a specific order. When we read Mark’s gospel, we find that it reads like a recollection of memories rather than a specific chronological telling of Jesus’ life and teachings, which corroborates what Papias has stated concerning the authorship of Mark’s gospel.
Turning to the Gospel of Luke, we see noticeable markers of authenticity not only from the church fathers but also from the Gospel itself, corroborated in Paul’s letters. In one of the oldest lists of New Testament books widely known by biblical scholars as the Muratorian fragment, we read,
“… at which he was present, and so he placed it. The third book of the Gospel according to Luke. Luke the physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him along with him as a companion for his travels [or, “when Paul had taken him as an assistant, since he was desirous of righteousness”], wrote his own name, as seemed good to him—notwithstanding he had not himself seen the Lord in the flesh—and according as he was able to understand the same: so he began to speak from the nativity of John.”[9]
What we find within the Muratorian Fragment corroborates what we learn of Luke and the Apostle Paul’s relationship within the New Testament. Specifically, it is inferred that Luke is a close traveling companion of Paul in a couple of key references, such as 2 Timothy 4:11 and Philemon 1:23-24. Also, through the Muratorian fragment, we learn that the third gospel is tied to the person of Luke himself. In Irenaeus Against Heresies, we also find consensus of Luke writing his Gospel. He states, “And Luke too, the attendant of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached to him.”[10] In much the same manner as the Muratorian Fragment, here we find one of the early church Fathers attributing Luke’s gospel to Luke, but also the fact that Luke was closely associated with Paul, just as indicated within Paul’s letters. The Church historian Eusebius records the Church Father Origen attributing all four gospels to their respective namesakes. In his Commentary on Matthew, he states,
“I learned by tradition that the four Gospels alone are unquestionable in the church of God. First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers. The second was by Mark, who wrote it following Peter’s directives, whom Peter also acknowledged as his son in his epistle: ‘The church in Babylon greets you… and so does my son Mark’ [Peter 5:13]. The third is by Luke, who wrote the Gospel praised by Paul for Gentile believers. After them all came John’s.”[11]
Suffice it to say, there are references by other church fathers attributing one of the Gospels to Luke. Hopefully, the evidence of attestation among the early church fathers and the corroboration with Paul’s letters and what is indicated concerning the relationship between Paul and Luke is more than satisfactory to demonstrate original authorship of Luke corresponding to his gospel.
Finally, concerning the early church fathers and their attribution of the gospels to the original authors, we turn to John. In much the same manner as the Muratorian Fragment attributes Luke to his respective gospel, we see stated in the fragment concerning John,
“The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow disciples and overseers urged him, he said, ‘Fast ye together for me to-day for three days and let us relate to each other the revelation we receive.’ The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that, while all looked over, John should write out all things in his own name….”[12]
Here we find an indication of John being associated with the other Apostles, and even more so that they encouraged him to write everything down that he had witnessed and observed. In addition to the Muratorian Fragment, we see Irenaeus articulating evidence for traditional authorship of John. He states, “Afterwards, John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His Breast, he again put forth his gospel, while he abode in Ephesus in Asia.”[13] Eusebius, in his Church History, records Clement of Alexandria stating,
“Yet of all those who had been with the Lord, only Matthew and John left us their memoirs, and tradition has it that they did so of necessity. Matthew at first preached to the Hebrews, and when he planned to go to others also, he wrote his Gospel in his own native language for those he was leaving, his writing filling the gap left by his departure. Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, but John, it is said, had used only the spoken word until he finally took to writing for the following reason. The three written Gospels in circulation also came into John’s hands. He welcomed them, it is said, and affirmed their accuracy, but noted that the narrative lacked only the account of what Christ had done at the beginning of his mission.”[14]
In surveying all of the references mentioning John by the early church fathers, one thing becomes increasingly clear. It is that the fourth Gospel had been overwhelmingly and unanimously recognized and attributed to John the Apostle. It is interesting to note that recently, a different theory has surfaced concerning the authorship of John’s Gospel. Scholars such as Richard Bauckham have proposed that the Gospel itself was not written by John but by another eyewitness named John the Elder. While I agree with Baucham that the fourth Gospel of the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony, I do disagree based on the consensus of the early church fathers that John’s Gospel was written by someone other than the Apostle John.
Having surveyed both the Manuscript evidence and the unanimous consensus of the early scholars arguing for traditional authorship of the gospels, I want to provide some closing thoughts concerning the above data. One might be asking what the big deal is concerning the Gospels being attributed to their traditional authors. Or, unfortunately, I hear you, but still do not buy into the fact that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors, or let alone, based on eyewitness testimony. Concerning the first question, it is a significant deal because it helps in building a larger case for the Gospels themselves being based on eyewitness accounts. This in turn establishes authority and an accurate picture of what Jesus said and did concerning his life, death, burial, and resurrection. Thus, it matters greatly. For those who are still skeptical of the above data and are truly not convinced, let me pose this. Even hypothetically, if the Gospels were not written by their traditional authors, it would do nothing to undermine their authenticity or reliability. Thus, we could still trust them because each gospel account bears evidence that they were authored by someone familiar with key specific details about geographical locations, finance, customs, and many other elements. It is important to point out that there are other documents found within Christian Scripture that are formally anonymous, like 1st and 2nd Chronicles and 1st and 2nd Kings, as well as the book of Hebrews. It is a non-sequitur to state that just because a book is anonymous, it absolutely needs to be thrown out and discredited, as there are unique ways of determining whether an ancient document is more reliable and trustworthy than solely relying on authorship.
In conclusion, while there are other things to consider about the authorship of the four canonical gospels, the data that has been surveyed should be sufficient. As I have articulated so thoughtfully in this article, there is strong evidence for the gospels being the product of both disciples and apostles of the Lord Jesus. This, in turn, has the capability to bolster our faith and to stand firm on what was faithfully written and recorded about Christ. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider.
[1] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus became God (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2014), 90.
[2] Ibid, 90.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (New York, NY: Penguin Random House LLC, 2016), 18.
[6] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 130.
[7] Eusebius, The Church History, 183.
[8] Eusebius, The Church History, 130.
[9] Jackson, George A. The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the Second Century.
Edited by George P. Fisher. Early Christian Literature Primers. New York: D Appleton and Company, 1897, 187.
[10] S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons. Five Books of S. Irenaeus against Heresies. Translated by John Keble. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford; London; Cambridge: James Parker and Co.; Rivingtons, 1872, 204.
[11] Eusibius, The Church History. 226.
[12] Jackson, George A. The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the Second Century, 187.
[13] Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon, Five Books of S. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 204.
[14] Eusibius, Church History, 114.
