Gospel Authorship

The Gospels were in fact anonymous to begin with. The question is when did the Gospel names become attached to these gospels? It had to be as soon as more than one was in a specific location of the Mediterranean world. The names would be used to distinguish between them. It also started out by just saying “According to Mark” or “According to Matthew”. Gospel wasn’t attached yet because they didn’t know what to call it. They just had a work that was attributed to an author.

I. External Evidence

A. Irenaeus (~180 A.D.):

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” (c.185. Against Heresies, 3.1.1)

1. Given the brevity of this paragraph and the lack of explanation, it seems that these traditions had already been well established in the early church.

B. The Muratorian Fragment (170-300 A.D.)

“. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. . .”

1. Mentions Luke and John by name.

2. Luke is identified specifically as one who had not seen Jesus.

Note: The Muratorian Fragment is from the seventh-century and is thought to be a copy of a document originating from 170-300 A.D.

C. Eusebius Church History 3.39.15-16

15. “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.16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

1. The church historian Eusebius  (c. 263-c. 339) quotes Papias (a bishop who lived in Hierapolis) who served during the first half of the second century.

There is question whether the documents which Papias knew as the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are the same ones that we have today: Matthew is a narrative, rather than a sayings gospel with commentary, and some scholars reject the thesis that it was originally written in Hebrew.

II. Internal Evidence

A. Matthew is the Author of the First Gospel

If Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, wrote the first Gospel, why would he have based his work on the writing of somebody who didn’t even know Jesus personally (Mark)?

But why would someone attribute a gospel to a “lesser” disciple and not a prominent one like Peter, James, or John. Matthew doesn’t have a prominent role in any of the gospels and not even a speaking part. One would expect if someone was to attach a disciple’s name to give authority to the writing, that they would pick a more prominent disciple. The Gospel of Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, but Matthew was a tax collector who would have had a hard time convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah since he was in league with the Roman authorities.

B. Mark is the Author of the Second Gospel

1. Includes Latinisms (Latin terms in a Greek text-for example: legion in 5:9; denarius in 6:37; centrion in 15:39) which supports the notion that the author was writing in a location where Latin was the primary language, such as Rome. Mark was Peter’s companion in Rome.

2. One would expect if some second-century Christian made up an author for the Gospel they would not choose Mark, someone who was not a disciple.

C. Luke is the Author of the Third Gospel

1. Luke is mentioned in Paul’s letters as his companion (Philemon 24; Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11).

2. Acts is written as if the author was a companion of Paul during some of his journeys (for example, Acts 16:10-17)

Some think that the “we” sections in Acts are a literary device, and not as evidence that the author of Acts was truly a companion of Paul

3. The third Gospel was written by the author of Acts (compare Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-5)

This leads to Luke being the author of the third Gospel.

• The theology of the third Gospel and Acts differ from that of Paul in some respects.
• Linking Luke with Paul may increase Luke’s credibility as a Gospel writer, but it doesn’t provide evidence of how Luke knew the truth of Jesus. Paul was not an eye witness to the Jesus of the Gospel, so how would a link to Paul give Luke more authority?

D. John is the Author of the Fourth Gospel

1. The Gospel makes reference to its authorship toward the end of the Gospel (John 21:20-24)

²⁰ Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” ²¹ When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” ²² Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” ²³ So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” ²⁴ This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

The Greek phrase “has written these things” can mean “has caused them to be written”, which would identify the disciple as the source but not the actually author of this gospel.

2. This disciple is identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, which shows up in other parts of John (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20). Possible identifications:

a. John, the son of Zebedee (traditional ID)

b. Lazarus. Supported by the fact that Lazarus is specifically and unusually described as one who was loved by Jesus (John 11:3, 5, 11, 36). (Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006), 127-152.

III. Additional Arguments against Authorship

A. Many early Christian writings were pseudonymous such as the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, as well as many others. The names were attached to give authority to the writings. The same is true for the Gospels in today’s Christian Bible. (See arguments against Pseudonymity.)

B. It wasn’t until sometime in the second century that scribes began to put names alongside the Gospels.

IV. Additional Arguments to Support Authorship

A. Even though Mark was not an eyewitness, the early church quickly accepted this Gospel as truth. This can be seen by the use of Mark in the writing of Matthew and Luke.
B. Even if the authors named in the Gospel traditions did not specifically write the corresponding Gospel (i.e. they could have used scribes), the Gospels could still hold their memories and their authority.
C. If the Gospels were guilty of pseudonymous than one would think more proment apostilitic names would be use.

D. We have no evidence that these Gospels were named anything else than the names we have today.