Program / Course 7: New Testament Theology and History / Lesson 3.2
What you will learn
- State the traditional authors of the four gospels and the earliest evidence for those attributions.
- Summarize the main arguments for and against the traditional views.
- Explain what scholars mean by anonymous and by pseudonymous writing, and why these terms matter.
- Give a fair account of how Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and critical scholars handle the question.
The big idea
From at least the second century, Christians have attributed the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. None of the gospels names its author in the text. Church tradition reports who wrote them, and many scholars accept some or all of these reports. Others judge that the books were written by unnamed Christians and received the names later. The question affects how much weight a reader gives to eyewitness testimony, but a book’s value for the church does not depend on settling it.
Key terms
- Anonymous
- Written without the author’s name in the text. The four gospels are anonymous, and their titles were added when they were collected.
- Pseudonymous
- Written under the name of someone other than the real author. Scholars debate whether any New Testament books are pseudonymous.
- Eyewitness
- A person who saw the events reported. Whether the gospels rest on eyewitnesses is part of the debate over authorship.
- Papias
- A bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor in the early second century, whose statements about Matthew and Mark are preserved in Eusebius’ history.
- Irenaeus
- Bishop of Lyons in the late second century, who defended the four gospels and named their authors.
- Beloved disciple
- A figure in the Gospel of John, called the disciple whom Jesus loved. John 21:24 identifies him as the witness behind the book.
- Superscription
- The title attached to a gospel, such as ‘According to Mark.’ These headings are not part of the original text, but appear in the oldest manuscripts.
Background
The gospels do not tell their own stories of authorship. Mark and Matthew say nothing about who wrote them. Luke addresses Theophilus and says he has investigated carefully, but he does not give his name. John ends with a statement that the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ bore witness to these things and that ‘we know that his testimony is true’ (John 21:24), a sentence that distinguishes the witness from those who wrote the book down.
Evidence about authorship comes from outside the books. The earliest statements come from Papias (about 110 to 130 AD, quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century) and then from Irenaeus (about 180 AD). The titles ‘According to Matthew’ and so on appear in the earliest manuscripts, and scholars generally think the names were attached in the early second century when the four were gathered as a set.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: What the tradition says
Papias, as reported by Eusebius, said that Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately what he remembered of Peter’s teaching, though not in order, and that Matthew compiled the sayings (logia) of the Lord in the Hebrew language. Irenaeus said that Matthew published a gospel among the Hebrews, that Mark handed down Peter’s preaching, that Luke, a follower of Paul, set down the gospel Paul preached, and that John, the disciple of the Lord, published his gospel while living in Ephesus.
These attributions became standard in the church. Mark was identified with John Mark of Acts, Luke with the physician and companion of Paul named in Colossians 4:14, Matthew with the tax collector who became an apostle, and John with the son of Zebedee.
Step 2: Reasons for accepting the traditions
Defenders of the traditional view point out that the names are unexpected. Mark and Luke were not apostles. If the church had wished to give authority to unknown books, it would have attached the names of Peter or James. That the names are of lesser figures suggests they were remembered and not invented. All the early church sources agree, and no rival attributions exist in the manuscripts.
Some scholars add internal evidence. Luke’s two volumes include passages in which the narrator says ‘we’ (Acts 16:10 to 17, 20:5 to 21:18, 27:1 to 28:16), which could point to a companion of Paul. The detailed knowledge of Palestine in John could indicate a writer close to events. Richard Bauckham argues that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony and that the names Papias gives reflect real connections.
Step 3: Reasons for doubt
Critical scholars note that Papias’ words about Matthew do not clearly describe the Greek Gospel of Matthew, which is not a translation from Hebrew and which draws heavily on Mark. They ask why an apostle and eyewitness would depend so much on the work of someone who was not. Some think the tradition attached an apostle’s name to give the book authority.
John presents a special case. Its style and theology differ from the other three, and the beloved disciple is never named. Scholars hold several views: that the apostle John wrote it, that a disciple of his or a community did so, or that another person called John the Elder was responsible. Papias himself mentions two Johns. Luke’s ‘we’ passages are also debated, since some scholars treat the ‘we’ as a literary device or as an itinerary source.
Step 4: A fair way to proceed
The evidence is limited and the conclusions differ. A reader can hold that the traditional view is probable, or that it is uncertain, and still read the texts closely. Dates also matter: scholars who accept the traditional authors usually date the books earlier, while others date them later.
A student should also distinguish authorship from authority. The churches have received the four gospels as Scripture because of their use in the church from the earliest times, and not only because of the identity of their authors. The next lessons show how authorship questions bear on the study of the synoptic problem.
- Why might the church have preferred the names of Mark and Luke, who were not apostles, if the names were invented?
- What difference would it make to a reader if Matthew were written by an eyewitness?
- What is your reaction to the idea that all four gospels were anonymous at first?
- How should a reader weigh the testimony of Papias, a writer whose own books are lost?
- What does John 21:24 suggest about the relation between the witness and the writer?
- Does the church’s acceptance of the gospels depend on knowing who wrote them?
Examples
Papias on Mark
Papias reports that Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately what he remembered, though not in order. Scholars note that this description fits a gospel without a strict timeline, and they also note that Papias’ reliability is debated. Eusebius himself thought Papias was not a man of great intelligence.
The we passages in Acts
In Acts 16:10, the narrator changes from ‘they’ to ‘we’ as Paul sails to Macedonia. Some scholars think this shows the author traveling with Paul. Others suggest that the author used a travel diary or adopted a literary convention.
A tradition about John
Irenaeus, who says he heard Polycarp as a boy, and Polycarp had known John, links the gospel to John in Ephesus. Some scholars find this a strong chain, and others doubt that Polycarp knew the apostle John and not another John.
Different perspectives
Catholic view
The Catholic Church holds to the traditional attributions as a matter of ancient tradition, and teaches that the gospels come from the apostles and their circle (Dei Verbum, 18). Catholic scholars take part in debates about the precise role of the apostles and their associates in the composition of the books.
Orthodox view
The Orthodox Church receives the traditional names, keeps the feast days of the evangelists and honors them as apostles or companions of apostles. Orthodox scholars generally respect the tradition while using historical study to understand the texts.
Protestant view
Conservative Protestants usually defend the traditional authors, often dating the gospels earlier. Other Protestants, including many mainline scholars, treat the authors as unknown or give weight to later community traditions. Protestant confessions rest on the authority of Scripture, not on the identity of the writers.
Critical scholarly view
Many critical scholars hold that the gospels are anonymous and that the traditional names arose in the second century. Some accept that Mark and Luke may be correct. Most think that Matthew and John were not written by apostles in their present form, but agree that some tradition reaching back to them lies behind the books.
Why it matters
Authorship governs how readers think of the gospels’ closeness to events. It also shows how history and faith meet: believers rely on tradition, and scholars on evidence, and the two sometimes agree and sometimes do not. Learning to hold an uncertain question openly is a skill for reading any ancient text.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The gospels say who wrote them.
Correction: They do not. The names come from early church tradition and the manuscript titles.
Misunderstanding: If the authors are not the apostles, the gospels have no value.
Correction: The churches received the books for their witness to Christ and for their use in the church, and not on authorship alone. Many scholars who doubt apostolic authorship hold that the books preserve early tradition.
Misunderstanding: All scholars who accept traditional authorship are uncritical, and all who reject it are hostile.
Correction: Careful scholars of every conviction are found on both sides. The judgment depends on how the evidence is weighed.
Misunderstanding: Papias described the Gospel of Matthew exactly.
Correction: What he meant by logia and by the Hebrew language is disputed. The Greek Matthew is not obviously a translation, so scholars debate what Papias referred to.
Knowledge check
Who are the traditional authors, and what is the earliest evidence?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The earliest evidence is the manuscript titles and the statements of Papias in the early second century, followed by Irenaeus around 180 AD. The gospels themselves do not name their authors.
Give one argument for and one against the tradition about Mark.
For: Mark was not an apostle, so inventing his name seems unlikely, and Papias links him to Peter. Against: Papias’ report is second-hand and Mark’s gospel shows little sign of Peter’s special perspective, so some scholars treat the link as a later claim.
Why is the authorship of Matthew debated?
Matthew draws heavily on Mark, which seems odd for an eyewitness, and it is written in good Greek and not obviously translated from Hebrew. Papias’ words are unclear. Defenders suggest that Matthew used Mark and added his own memories, or that Papias referred to a source.
What does John 21:24 suggest?
It says that the beloved disciple testifies and wrote these things and adds that others know his testimony is true. Scholars read this as showing a witness and also a group or editor who passed on his testimony.
Does the church’s acceptance of the gospels rest on authorship?
Not only. The churches received the books because they were used in worship, were seen as faithful to the apostolic teaching and carried authority from early times. Authorship was one of several signs, and not the whole basis.
Think it through
- How do you weigh a tradition that is old but cannot be confirmed?
- Which would matter more to you, an apostolic author or a faithful record of apostolic teaching, and why?
- What would change your mind about the authorship of one gospel?
- How can a church community discuss these questions without anxiety or anger?
Independent assignment
Weighing the evidence for one gospel
In your own notebook, write 300 to 450 words. Choose one gospel. List the evidence for the traditional author and the evidence against, then state which you find more persuasive and what the limits of your view are. Read the first chapter of that gospel before you write. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies Read Book 3, chapter 1, for the second-century statement of the four gospels and their authors.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Read selectively on Papias and the argument for eyewitness testimony.
- F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Read the chapters on the gospels from a traditional viewpoint, then compare them with critical views.
- Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament Read selectively on the recognition of the four gospels.
- John 21:24 The disciple who testifies of these things.
- Colossians 4:14 Luke the beloved physician.
- Acts 16:10 The first of the we passages.