Claims Against Christianity - Gospel Authorship

An all-too-common objection to Christianity is the claim that the Gospels – the Bible books which recount the birth, life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ – were written by anonymous authors. The goal of this argument is two-fold, it is meant to question the eyewitness testimony of the Gospels and to bring doubt to Christians about the authenticity and historicity of the scriptures on which they base their faith.

New Testament scholar and current agnostic Bart Ehrman says in his book Jesus Interrupted that “there were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles).”

Similarly, Dave B. Martin notes in his book New Testament History and Literature that certain people “believe that all four Gospels were originally published anonymously, and the names they now bear were given to the four books later to link the books to disciples of Jesus or close disciples of disciples of Jesus.”

This article aims to provide sufficient evidence to support the traditional view that the original Gospel authors – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were the true historical figures associated with these texts, thereby reinforcing their credibility and authentic connection to the events they describe.

Anonymous Authorship

The argument regarding the anonymous authorship of the Gospels is common because they do not have an author attached to them. The Gospels themselves do not tell us who their authors were, and since they were not ‘signed’, some have taken this to mean that they should be referred to as anonymous.

In an article written by Stephen Bedard for History of Christianity, he writes that “all that scholars are saying is that nowhere in the text of the Gospel does it say who wrote it.” While it is a fact that the Gospels do not tell us who wrote them, it would be unwise to take this fact alone as proof of the author's anonymity and/or pseudonymity.

Looking at other works of antiquity suggests that this was not uncommon for the time. Tacitus, according to Britannica, was a Roman official and probably “the greatest historian” and among the greatest prose stylists who wrote in Latin. However, even he did not quote himself as the author of one of his greatest works, Annals. The same goes for the Jewish historian Josephus. His work, The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, is without an internal author. The most notable example is the Gallic Wars, attributed to Gaius Julius Caesar. It is also without a signed author by the Roman proconsul.

Others point to the fact that Matthew for example was written in the third person. Bart Ehrman wrote on his blog that “at every point, it needs to be remembered that the Gospel does not claim to be written by Matthew; quite the contrary, not only is it anonymous: it speaks of Matthew as one of the characters in the story in the third person.”

His first argument has been addressed above. Regarding his second one, that argument is nothing new. As Ecclesiastes 1:9 states: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”

Faustus the Manichaean brought up this exact argument, to which Church Father Augustine of Hippo responded in his comprehensive rebuttal to Faustus called “Contra Faustum Manichaeum”. Augustine’s rebuttal was written in the late 4th Century.

In Book XVII, Faustus argued:

“But, besides this, we shall find that it is not Matthew that has imposed upon us, but someone else under his name, as is evident from the indirect style of the narrative. Thus, we read: "As Jesus passed by, He saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and called him; and he immediately rose up, and followed Him." No one writing of himself would say, He saw a man, and called him, and he followed Him, but He saw me, and called me, and I followed Him. Evidently, this was written not by Matthew himself, but by someone else under his name.”

To which Augustine replied:

“Faustus thinks himself wonderfully clever in proving that Matthew was not the writer of this Gospel, because, when speaking of his own election, he says not, He saw me, and said to me, follow me; but He saw him, and said to him, Follow me. This must have been said either in ignorance or from a design to mislead. Faustus can hardly be so ignorant as not to have read or heard that narrators, when speaking of themselves, often use a construction as if speaking of another. It is more probable that Faustus wished to bewilder those more ignorant than himself, in the hope of getting hold of not a few unacquainted with these things. It is needless to resort to other writings to quote examples of this construction from profane authors for the information of our friends and for the refutation of Faustus.”

Important to also note that Julius Caesar was known for this in his writings as well. Josephus did the same in antiquities.

The Illiterate Disciples

The alleged illiteracy of the disciples is what some point to when they claim the authors were anonymous. Bart Ehrman, on his blog, states that “Matthew the tax collector was a Palestinian Jew. As such, his native language was Aramaic” He also made a point that an estimated 97% of Palestinian Jews at that time were illiterate apart from elites in urban settings. “There is nothing to suggest that Matthew, the tax collector, was an urban elite who was highly educated,” Ehrman argues.

Vice President at the Institute for Biblical Languages and Translation, Randall Buth, stated in an article that many scholars in the twentieth century assumed that only Aramaic and Greek were common in first-century Israel. However, he wrote that it has since been proven by specialists working in the field of Mishnaic Hebrew “that three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were in common use.” Moreover, an Oxford Studies book by Bernard Spolsky and Robert L. Cooper added Latin to this list as well.

Another popular argument skeptics, not only Ehrman, bring to invalidate the traditional authorship is that of the illiteracy of the time.

If we look at Acts 4:13, we see the use of the word “uneducated” when referring to the disciples Peter and John. “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.”

This verse, especially the word “uneducated” is used as proof that the disciples were illiterate. However, the context in which the Greek word “agrammatos” (uneducated) is being used provides the narrower idea of being “unacquainted with Rabbinic teaching.” That is, not formally trained by any Rabbis. In other words, this verse has nothing to do with the literacy of the disciples.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest the disciples could not read or write in the other languages that were present in first-century Jerusalem. Matthew was a tax collector, and the Roman tax system was so intricate that at least basic reading and writing skills were needed to be a tax collector.

In 2023, historian Moshe Rideout wrote an article called ‘Who Were Tax Collectors in Ancient Rome.’ In the article, he wrote about the importance of tax collection in ancient Rome, stating that “tax collection was a matter of survival for the state and the government.” It was how the Roman government generated its income and redistributed wealth. Tax collectors at that time worked for the whole Roman Empire. Rideout continued that tax collection “enabled the state to pay for its military and public works operations, redistribute wealth, and maintain stability.”

Additionally, Ehrman also contradicted himself, writing that “throughout most of antiquity, since most people could not write, there were local "readers" and "writers" who hired out their services to people who needed to conduct business that required written texts: tax receipts, legal contracts, licenses, personal letters, and the like.”

As Matthew himself was a tax collector, it would thus follow that he was literate.

With all these historical contexts, it is more likely to assume the disciples, and Matthew in particular, had some form of literacy, thereby making the illiteracy argument void.

Internal evidence for authorship

Though no name is listed, internal evidence provides some clues for the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Keith Thomson who contributes for the website Answering Islam not only provides this, but also external evidence in his article ‘Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship.’ This section will go through his arguments for the internal evidences and will take a look at each Gospel in turn.

Regarding the gospel of Matthew, Thomson writes:

“In numerous Matthaean passages, financial transactions are discussed (17:24-27; 18:23-35, 20:1-16, 26:15, 27:3-10, 28:11-15) and none of this content contradicts what a 1st century tax collector would know about finance.”

He continues the financial argument which draws its credibility from Matthew’s prior job as a tax collector.

“We see in 22:19 that with respect to the Pharisees’ conflict with Jesus over paying tribute money or taxes to Caesar, the Gospel of Matthew alone not only uses the word δηνάριον (dēnarion) but also the more precise Greek term νόμισμα (state coin). In contrast, the other synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:15, Luke 20:24) only use δηνάριον (dēnarion) concerning this episode not showing the same concern for the precise financial term that Matthew does. This lends more evidence towards the position that we are dealing with Matthew the tax collector who was familiar with and concerned about accuracy regarding financial terminology.”

Pointing to Matthew’s job as a tax collector, Thomson suggests it is the reason Matthew adds certain sections and stories in his gospel. “It is the Gospel of Matthew alone which mentions Jesus telling Peter to “give no offense to them [the tax collectors]” and to pay temple tax in Capernaum when asked to (17:24-27).”

Moving to the gospel of Mark, he begins his argument by drawing attention to the fact that Mark and Peter resided in Rome later in Peter’s life. This becomes an important stepping stone to the rest of his argument on Mark’s authorship. “We know that Peter resided in Rome in the later part of his life. Writing from Rome Peter says that Mark was with him as a close acquaintance, “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.” (1 Peter 5:13). Peter identifying Mark as his son is not to be taken biologically but in a ministerial sense. Here we see evidence of John Mark with Peter in Rome which is consistent with the position that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome, based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony as early tradition affirms.”

Furthermore, Thomson points to the occurrence of ‘Latinisms’ – Latin terms contained in another language other than Latin – in Mark’s gospel. “Due to their presence in this Gospel many infer that the author wrote Mark in a place where Latin was dominant. Rome was such a place and since there are numerous strong reasons to believe Mark was written in Rome the contention that John Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome alongside Peter is supported. Some of the peculiar Latinisms in Mark include 15:16 identifying a αὐλή (courtyard) as a πραιτώριον (Praetorium) which is a Roman/Latin term. Other Latinisms are found in 5:9 where the term legion is used or in 6:37 where the term denarius is used – and there are more.”

He moves on to signal another piece of internal evidence found in Mark’s Gospel.

“Many scholars and even Muslim writers have pointed out that Mark contains some Pauline theology. John Mark being the author of Mark along with the fact of his personal connection with Paul (Acts 13:5, 13; Philemon 1:24; Colossians 4:10) would explain this well.” Thomson stated that the presence of Paul’s theology indicates an acquaintance with Paul. “The majority of scholars affirm that Paul wrote before Mark. With that in mind a very clear example of Mark picking up on Pauline thought concerns the cross of Christ.”

Thomson circles back to the connection between Peter and Mark. He explained that the fact that inclusion is present in the Gospel indicates it is written from Peter’s eyewitness testimony. “Inclusio of eyewitness testimony is a literary devise where ancient writings would name the major eyewitness underlying an account first and last in the document…When Mark practiced inclusio he listed the apostle Peter as the eyewitness behind his Gospel (1:16; 16:7).”

All of these points put together show remarkable internal evidence of Mark’s authorship.

Moving on to the Gospel of Luke, Thomson takes us to the book of Acts as well. Both in Luke 1:1-3 and in Acts 1:1-2, Theophilus is addressed as the main audience for the content.

Luke 1:1-3:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Acts 1:1-2:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

“That the same author wrote both books is affirmed by virtually all modern scholars. With Luke and Acts having a common author in mind we will now show that Acts (and thus by extension Luke) was written by Luke the companion of Paul and acquaintance of other disciples,” Thomson wrote.

Thomson then points to 5 “we” passages, in which the author includes himself as an eyewitness. These verses are:

• Acts 16:10-17

• Acts 20:5-16

• Acts 21:1-18

• Acts 27:1-28

• Acts 28:16

An example of another book of the Bible affirming Luke’s presence is also given in Thomson’s evidence. In Acts 28:16, Luke wrote: And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.

We then see written in 2 Timothy 1:16-17: May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome, he searched for me earnestly and found me.

2 Timothy 4:11:

"Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry."

Let’s put this together. Acts 28:16 shows Luke was in Rome with Paul during the time of his imprisonment. We know this was Luke because of 2 Timothy 4:11 and we know 2 Timothy was written in Rome during Paul’s imprisonment because of 2 Timothy 1:16-17. This makes Luke the most likely candidate for being the author of both books Luke and Acts.

Same as he did for Matthew, Thomson pointed to Luke’s profession as further evidence for his authorship. He wrote that Luke’s profession of physician (identified in Colossians 4:14) can be seen in the medical interest and language used in his Gospel. “For example, Matthew 8:14 and Mark 1:30 mention Peter’s mother-in-law suffering from a πυρέσσω (fever). Luke 4:38, however, says she suffered from a μέγας πυρετός (high fever) thus showing medical interest. Instead of speaking of a man with leprosy or λεπρος (a leper) as Matthew 8:2 does, Luke 5:12 says the man was πληρης λεπρας (full of leprosy), i.e., his disease was in an advanced stage. This shows medical interest consistent with a physician.”

Coming to the last of the 4 Gospels, the author of John claims to be an eyewitness in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 2:11:

"This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him."

From these 2 verses we see that the author was present at the wedding at Cana and therefore is a disciple. Thompson wrote that the discussion around the authorship f John mainly centers around John 21, in which we are told of the “beloved disciple” who was an eyewitness of Christ’s life as well as the author of the book.

John 21:20-24:

Peter turned around and saw behind them the disciple Jesus loved—the one who had leaned over to Jesus during supper and asked, “Lord, who will betray you?” Peter asked Jesus, “What about him, Lord?” Jesus replied, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? As for you, follow me.”

So, the rumor spread among the community of believers that this disciple wouldn’t die. But that isn’t what Jesus said at all. He only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate.

John 21:2:

Simon Peter, Thomas (called the Twin), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together.

John 21:2 narrows the 12 disciples (at that time 11 disciples due to Judas’ death) to 7 disciples to choose from. Thompson continued that “of these seven we can easily rule out Peter, Thomas, Nathanael and James as being the beloved disciple. And supporting the orthodox belief that it was John, son of Zebedee, and not one of these two unnamed disciples, is the fact that John son of Zebedee isn’t mentioned by name in the fourth gospel even though less known apostles are such as Philip, Lazarus, and Judas (not Judas Iscariot); and even though the synoptic Gospels often mention John the apostle by name.”

Thomson follows through with the reasoning the beloved disciple is John the son of Zebedee, he notes:

“The beloved disciple is distinguished by name from Peter. Thus, the beloved disciple is not Peter. James, son of Zebedee, was martyred around A.D. 44 toward the end of the reign of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-2), while the beloved disciple lived long enough for the rumor about him not dying until Christ came for him was seen to be true. Moreover, James died too soon for him to author the fourth Gospel. Thus James son of Zebedee is ruled out as being the beloved disciple. Most scholars who examine the actual evidence affirm Nathanael was not one of the twelve. The beloved disciple was, however. We know this because he attended the Last Supper when only the twelve attended. What is more, since it is part of the fourth gospel’s nature to not name the beloved disciple even when others are named concerning events he is involved with, it is specious to say that Nathanael, who is often named, should be regarded as the beloved disciple. This rule’s out Nathanael from being the beloved disciple.”

After explaining the orthodox view of John, the son of Zebedee being the beloved disciple and therefore the author, he continues by pointing out his relationship with Peter as further evidence:

“Further support for Johannine authorship is the fact that in the fourth Gospel the beloved disciple and the apostle Peter are linked closely together. … Interestingly the non-Johannine New Testament data very strongly links John son of Zebedee and Peter (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1, 11; 4:13; 8:15-25; Galatians 2:9). This further supports the beloved disciple being John the apostle who was close to Peter and thus the author of the fourth gospel.”

Lazarus is one candidate of being the beloved disciple that some scholars posit. However, the beloved disciple was one of the 12 disciples and Lazarus was not one of the 12 disciples, therefore he is disqualified, leaving only John the son of Zebedee.

External evidence for authorship

There are multiple pieces of evidence that lend credibility to the traditional authorship of the Gospels. We will look at a few notable ones for this article.

“A Quest for the Text: Understanding the Authorship of the Gospels” is an article written by Jessica Lincoln. In it she lists a few key people whose name hold some weight regarding this issue:

Let’s look at these church fathers in turn starting from Papias of Hierapolis c.60-130. The bishop of Hierapolis and church father knew John the apostle and was discipled by him. His writings date back to the late first century and early second century (95-110 A.D.). Eusebius of Caesarea c.260-339 (known as the Father of Church History) recorded the remaining fragmentations of Papias’ work “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord” in his work called “Ecclesiastical History”. Regarding the gospel of Mark, Eusebius quoted Papias of saying:

“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 afterwards, 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.”

Papias goes on to say this about Matthew: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect and everyone translated it as he was able”

From these two quotes, we see strong and early evidence for Matthew and Mark’s authorship as Gospel writers.

Up next is Justin Martyr c.100-165, another church father and one of the earliest Christian apologists. In Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology, he says this regarding the Gospels:

“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, …”

He therefore is implying the apostolic influence and thereby eyewitness testimony of the Gospels. In his work “Dialogue with Trypho”, he quoted from 3 Gospels - Matthew 11:27, Mark 3:17, and Luke 22:44 – respectively in his argument for the authorship (as can be seen in the next paragraphs).

“For I have shown that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have shown that not only in the Blessing of both Jacob and Judah have the things concerning Him been proclaimed in a mystery, but also in the Gospel He has been recorded as saying: All things have been delivered to me by the Father, and no one knoweth the Father save the Son, nor any the Son save the Father, and they to whom the Son shall have revealed Him. (Matt 11:27)”

“When we are told that He changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter, and we find it recorded in his Memoirs that this took place: besides His having also changed the names of two other brethren, the sons of Zebedee, to that of Boanerges which is sons of thunder (Mark 3:17)” - Note he referred to Mark’s gospel as the memoirs of Peter because Peter was Mark’s primary source.

“For in the Memoirs, which I say were composed by His apostles and them that followed them, it is written that sweat flowed down like clots while He was praying, and saying, let this cup pass away, if it be possible.”

Finally, we will look at Irenaeus c.130-202, Disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. This means there is only 1 human link from the apostles to Irenaeus, and that is Polycarp. The last church father we shall discuss in this article was the bishop of Lyon. In his work called “Against Heresies”, he wrote:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith … 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.”

We have only looked at 3 church fathers that support Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be the authors of the Gospels bearing their name. There are others like Origen of Alexandria c.185-254, Tertullian of Carthage c.155/160-220.

Another piece of evidence that undermines the claim of anonymous authorship is the fact that there is no manuscript with an intact first page that bears any name other than the traditional ones.

The final piece of evidence is logical. If the Gospels were manufactured and truly anonymous, why attach names of insignificant people like Luke and Mark, to them. Why not Peter, who was a primary source for Mark. Why not Paul, who was Luke’s companion? Gnostic Gospels written long after the death of the eyewitnesses use this to make sure their fraudulent work circulates. Examples of this are the gospels of Thomas, the gospel of Mary and the gospel of Peter just to name a few. The lack of this emphasizes the authenticity of the traditional authorship.

There are a lot of pieces of external evidence pointing to the traditional authorship, however these are some of the most notable and popular. Keith Thomson’s article provides more detailed pieces of external evidence on each gospel for further reading.

Conclusion

We have been through multiple arguments from those claiming anonymous authorship of the four biblical gospels and found these arguments to be lacking. The arguments for the case of traditional authorship are strong and therefore should be strongly considered by skeptics.

Ultimately, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the original authors and this was widely known at the time. The other thing this shows it the eyewitness testimony and date of said gospels (late first century at the latest).