Who wrote the Gospels? Do we know?

Who wrote the Gospels? Do we know? 

 

There are 4 Gospels in the Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. Written in almost every single version of the Bible at the start of these 4 Gospels is a superscription “The Gospel according to …Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.”

 

It has been widely understood throughout church history that the authors of these 4 Gospels were indeed the 4 men that have given their name to these Gospels. 

However, in recent times, certainly over the last Century or so, this consensus has changed. Most scholars today do not believe that these 4 Gospels were actually written by these 4 men. It is now more generally understood that the 4 Gospels were written anonymously and that we do not, in fact, know who wrote them. 

 

On a blog entitled “Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for Sure? We find the following assertion regarding the authorship of the Gospels:

“The Bible gives us four accounts of Christ’s life. Each records a unique perspective of the most significant event in history—the crucifixion and resurrection. All four gospels are named after men who lived during or shortly after Christ’s early ministry. Tradition considers these men the authors, but there’s one problem: not one of these books names its author.”

The gospels are anonymous—so how do we know who wrote them?

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels

 

In his best seller book, “Jesus, Interrupted,” Bart Ehrman wrote the following:

 

“A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels (‘the Gospel according to Matthew’), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it ‘The Gospel according to Matthew.’ The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books ‘according to.’

 Bart Ehrman. Jesus, Interrupted Pages 103-104

 

Bart also makes the claim in another of his books, How Jesus became God.

 

To begin with, they are not written by eyewitnesses. We call these books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they are named after two of Jesus’s earthly disciples, Matthew the tax collector and John the beloved disciple, and two of the close companions of other apostles, Mark the secretary of Peter and Luke the traveling companion of Paul. But in fact the books were written anonymously—the authors never identify themselves—and they circulated for decades before anyone claimed they were written by these people. The first certain attribution of these books to these authors is a century after they were produced.
Bart Ehrman, How Jesus became God page 90

 

So, are the Gospels really written anonymously and the titles of the Gospels a later addition as modern scholars like Bart Ehrman would assert, or were they written by the men that most of Christian history has attributed the Gospels to having been written by?

In order to answer this, we must look at the arguments against the traditional authorship of the Gospels and understand just why these modern Scholars assert that the Gospels were indeed written anonymously and then ascertain if those assertions are valid or not.

 

Let’s start with the claim that none of the Gospels name their author. When this claim is made it is important that we understand exactly what is actually being claimed, as it is, in fact, a rather misleading claim. 

The claim that the Gospels are anonymous is actually specifically in relation to the TEXT of the Gospels themselves. It is argued that nowhere within the TEXT do the authors identify themselves. For example, Matthew does not say “I Matthew” or “I Matthew wrote this Gospel”, or indeed, anything similar to identify himself as the writer, and the same is said about the other 3 Gospel writers, Mark, Luke and John.  

The reason that this is important to understand, just what is being claimed by this assertion, is that the Gospels DO, in fact, identify who the author is. The superscription, or the title of the Gospel, is found on ALL of our available manuscripts and reads “The Gospel according to” or simply  “according to” …then either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

We do not, in reality, have ANY manuscripts where the Gospels are actually anonymous. Every manuscript that we have that contains the title page (the start of the Gospel) includes a superscription that titles the individual Gospel in this manner or does so within the manuscript text, regardless of where in the world they have been found. The superscription is actually part of the manuscript. Therefore, we simply do not have any copies of anonymous Gospels.

 

I shall just give some examples here:

P66 is generally dated to the late 2nd – early 3rd Century

At the top of the page the superscription reads, euaggelion Kata Johannian (Gospel according to John)

P75 is also dated late 2nd Century- early 3rd Century

Again, we have the superscription euaggelion Kata Johannian (Gospel according to John)

These are the earliest manuscripts that contain the beginning of the Gospel of John, and both identify the Gospel as being according to John. There is nothing earlier than this in manuscript form that witnesses to the start of the Gospel of John and so the earliest manuscript witness that we have attests to the Gospel being, according to John.

Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are dated to the 4th Century, the 2 foremost manuscripts when it comes to modern textual criticism, include the superscription of the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at the beginning of the each of the Gospels respectively. So the two manuscripts that carry the most authority and are considered the “best” witnesses to the original text by modern textual critics attest to the Gospels having been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

And this is what we find in every single manuscript that we have available today that contains the start of one of the four Gospels. When it comes to our available manuscript evidence, the Gospels are, in no way anonymous.

At this point I must make note that despite the claims of the likes of Bart Ehrman the ONLY “variety” in titles that we have are between euaggelion Kata (Gospel according to) and then the name of the evangalist, and simply Kata (according to) and then the name of the evangalist.
The latter, shorter version is found only in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 

 

Now, obviously it must be noted, for purposes of being honest and upfront, that this argument against the anonymity of the Gospels based on this witness of the title included within the Gospels is not as strong as it might at first sound.  While we do not have any anonymous Gospels when it comes to the manuscript evidence, the manuscripts that we have are all, relatively late in comparison to the generally attested dates of authorship. It is argued by modern scholars that these superscriptions were added later, and earlier manuscripts would not have contained the title.

Of course, this is pure assumption. We do not have any actual physical manuscript evidence for this claim. This claim is not based in any way on physical manuscript evidence, manuscript evidence would suggest otherwise.

Rather this claim is based on the available patristic evidence and the fact that the authors do not directly identify themselves within the text.

The first person to have been a written witness and identify all four Gospels having been written by the men whose names the Gospels bare was Irenaeus around the year 180 AD.

 

1. 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. 
   Irenaeus against Heresies book 3 chapter 1

 

This is some 80-120 years after the Gospels were generally accepted to have been written. It is, therefore, argued that the Gospels circulated anonymously for the first century or so before the names were then assigned to them. This of course is an argument from silence.

However, there are a number of issues with this assertion.

Firstly, we have much earlier attestation, specifically to the Gospels of Matthew* and Mark being referred to as the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

Papias, who was an early church father who wrote in the early 2nd Century.

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John

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.
    Eusebius church history 3 chapter 39

So, we see that the evidence that attests to Matthew and Mark having written Gospels goes all the way back to the start of the 2nd Century, just 30-60 years after the generally accepted dates of authorship of these Gospels. This witness to the authorship of Matthew and Mark is extremely early. In reality we don’t have much in the way of any earlier writings by church writers. Therefore, we do not have much in the way of early church writers that can be used to support the Gospels specifically in relation to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark having not been attributed to Matthew and Mark.

Papias was described as being a hearer of John (the disciple). He was a companion of Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John (the disciple). Of course, John would have been a companion of Matthew, having both been direct disciples of our Lord Jesus the Christ.

* Here I must concede that it is possible, that the reference to Matthew by Papias is not actually a reference to his Gospel but rather to a writing of Matthew that he did in the Hebrew language recording the sayings of Jesus.
Papias says the (logion) saying of Jesus were recorded by Matthew in Hebrew. 

We also cannot Ignore the witness of Justin Martyr.  Justin doesn’t specifically name any of the writers of the Gospels, and so this is used to support the claim that at the time of Justin the Gospels had yet to been attributed to anyone in particular, Justin does explicitly tell us that the gospels were written by apostles and composed by them:

“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,”
Justin first apology chapter 66

Justin wrote his first apology around 155AD. This is again 2nd Century evidence. Whether or not Justin knew the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark Luke and John is debatable, a lack of attributing the Gospels to these four men does not necessitate that he was not aware of the authors of the Gospels, what is clear is that Justin did at least attributed them to apostles and not some random persons that history knows nothing of.

Justin does state that Peter, in his memoirs, referred to Jesus having changed the names of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, sons of thunder.

 

“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder;”
Dialogue with Trypho chapter 106 

This is only found in the Gospel according to Mark.

Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

This cannot a reference to the non canonical Gospel of Peter as this book has no mention of this event.

Tertullian referred to the Gospel that Mark published may be affirmed as being Peters

while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.
Tertullian against Marcion book 4 chapter 5 

 

We do have others who attest to the authorship of the Gospels, a shall cite just a couple.

“I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”
Tertullian (106-225) Against Marcion 4.2.1-2

 

Tertullian in his writing against Marcion where he mentions Mark he also mentions the gospels of Matthew, John and Luke. 

The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.
Tertullian against Marcion book 4 chapter 5

 

“Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter, just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews.”
Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215; Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13):

Eusebius also references the Gospel that Mark wrote.

 

1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.

2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life.
Eusebius church History book 2 chapter 16 

Eusebius attributes this Mark as being the Mark that Peter mentions in his first epistle.

And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son. 1 Peter 5:13 
Eusebius church history book 2 chapter 16 

 

According to Eusebius, Origen also referred to the 4 Gospels and named them as being those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He stated that Marks gospel was written as instructed by Peter

3. In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.
Eusebius church history book 6 chapter 25

Manuscript evidence and church history attests to the authorship of the Gospels having not been anonymous at all,  but rather the Gospels having been written precisely by those men that have given their names to them. It is also of great importance that there is no rival tradition that claims the Gospels were written by any others than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

No rival tradition from anywhere in the Christian world , no blank manuscripts and no manuscripts with any other name. Not so anonymous in my opinion.

 

But what of the claim by Bart that we saw earlier, that ”

“Authors never title their books ‘according to.”

Martin Hengel addresses this point in his book “Studies in the Gospel of Mark”.

“The Striking form of the title was used to express the fact that here the Gospel was narrated in the particular version of the evangelist in question. “
Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, page 65

If Hengel is correct then the title simply denotes from whose viewpoint the Gospel is being told.

 

 

 

Uniformed attribution of the Gospels.

If the gospels had truly circulated anonymously, as is claimed, and were only later attributed to the traditionally understood authors, then we must ask the question “How did everyone agree on who the authors were?  We have attestation from different areas of the early church that attribute these Gospels to these four men.  The Gospels are never attributed to anyone other than the four traditional authors. If it was only later that they were given these names, it is almost impossible that they would not have been attributed to others in different locals.
Obviously, there were four Gospels and so if all four were anonymous they would have needed to have been distinguished from each other. If the idea was to give these Gospels credibility by attaching names to them, then it is implausible to believe that each Gospel was attributed with their specific name and this name was consistent and uniformed regardless of the location that that attribution came from. Tertullian was in Carthage, Clement was in Alexandria, Papias was in Hierapolis (Modern day Turkey) and Irenaeus was in France. This was before the time of the internet when communication was much slower. 

 

Yet all those that attest to the names of the authors agree on those names and to which particular Gospel each name was to be attached to. Throughout all corners of the Roman empire. 

What you would expect is that different scribes from different locations would have attributed the gospels to different people. This is not what we have. There are no other attributions to the Gospels having been written by anyone else than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If the Gospels truly were anonymous it is very unlikely, in fact, I would assert impossible,  that all areas of the Christian world would have so readily agreed on the names for these four books without there having been any discussion about which names should have been attached to each Gospel, most certainly in the case of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. But what we would HAVE to accept in the understanding of anonymous Gospels is that someone made up this tradition and everyone, everywhere, somehow all agreed to call these books by these names and it wasn’t questioned and nobody attributed them to anyone else.  One thing we know is that there were many disputes in the early church. Yet not when it comes to the names of the Gospels. 

The Book of Hebrews for example, which was anonymous, has been accredited to a number of different people, including Paul, Luke and even Titus. This is what would have happened if the Gospels were anonymous. 

When it comes to the Gospels, as already noted, there is no rival tradition on the authorship of the Gospels. We do not have any manuscripts or any written witness that attributes the Gospels to anyone else. We also find no early church fathers debating the authorship or questioning the authorship of these Gospels. 

 There was a debate in the 5th Century about the authorship of the Gospels between Faustus and Augustine as recorded in the works of Augustine. Faustus was not a Christian, he was a Manichaean bishop. This was not a Christian debate.  In his 33rd book of his work “contra Faustus”, Augustine addresses the claims of Faustus that the Gospels were not written by those men that it was believed had written them. However, even within this argument, Faustus only argues that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, he does not name anyone else as the authors:

Augustine states:

“6. You are so hardened in your errors against the testimonies of Scripture, that nothing can be made of you; for whenever anything is quoted against you, you have the boldness to say that it is written not by the apostle, but by some pretender under his name.” 

 

Augustine then argues that if we doubt the authorship of the Gospels then how could we be sure of the authorship of any book.

“How can we be sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic origin of those books which are attributed to the apostles by the Church which the apostles themselves founded”

Then Augustine outlines the way in which we do know the authorship of any particular book and uses the likes of Plato and Aristotle as examples:

““Why does no one doubt the genuineness of the books attributed to Hippocrates? Because there is a succession of testimonies to the books from the time of Hippocrates to the present day, which makes it unreasonable either now or hereafter to have any doubt on the subject. How do we know the authorship of the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other similar writers, but by the unbroken chain of evidence? So also with the numerous commentaries on the ecclesiastical books, which have no canonical authority, and yet show a desire of usefulness and a spirit of inquiry. How is the authorship ascertained in each case, except by the author’s having brought his work into public notice as much as possible in his own lifetime, and, by the transmission of the information from one to another in continuous order, the belief becoming more certain as it becomes more general, up to our own day; so that, when we are questioned as to the authorship of any book, we have no difficulty in answering?”

Augustine Contra Faustum, Book XXXIII

 

So, the basic argument is that we know the authorship of a particular piece of work through a constant and unbroken line of attestation. If that unbroken line of attestation for the authorship of the Gospels is in doubt, then this would surely bring into doubt the authorship of every book and works from antiquity. It is because of that unbroken line of attestation that we still know that the Plato was the author of his works.

And this fact, that we know that Plato wrote the works of Plato, that is, in fact, evidence against the argument that the Gospels are anonymous because the authors do not identify themselves within the texts.

Plato NEVER mentions himself within his works and yet we know that Plato wrote the works of Plato.

This is actually found in many historical writings. Many more examples could be cited, although just a few is sufficient to demonstrate this fact.

Plutarch, who wrote 50 biographies never once mentions himself. Yet we do not doubt the authorship of his works. Clement of Rome is also another that never mentions himself within his writings.

Richard Bauckham wrote:

“All four Gospels are anonymous in the formal sense that the author’s name does not appear in the text of the work itself, only in the title. But this does not mean that they were intentionally anonymous. Many ancient works were anonymous in the same formal sense, and the name may not even appear in the in the surviving title of the work. For example, this is true of Lucian’s life of Demonax (Demonactos bios), which as a bios (ancient biography) is generically comparable with the Gospels. Yet Lucian speaks through out in the first person and obviously expects his readers to know who he is.” 
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses page 300

 

On the anonymity works of History E.P Sanders states:

“More important, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written ‘this is my version’ instead of ‘this is what Jesus said and did.’”
E.P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus p66.

E.P Sanders did believe that the Gospels were originally written anonymously.

 

 

Richard Bauckham further stated:

“Such works would often have been circulated in the first instance among friends or acquaintances of the author who would know who the was from the oral context in which the work was first read. Knowledge of authorship would be passed on when copies were made for other readers, and the name would be noted, with a brief title, on the outside of the scroll or on a label affixed to the scroll “
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses page 300

 

For the gospels to have been anonymous, then the works would have to have been written anonymously, presented anonymously and passed on with the author remaining anonymous.

Here I feel compelled to again quote Bauckham.

“In denying that the Gospels were originally anonymous, our intention is to deny that they were first presented as works without authors. “
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses page 300

 

As the Gospel of Luke is written with a dedication (to Theophilus) , it is highly improbable that the book would have been presented and then distributed without the author being known.

It would therefore,  have to be believed that the early church accepted as authoritative scripture, writings that they had no idea who had written them. These books would therefore have been written anonymously, passed on to others without the others knowing who originally wrote them,  copied by others who did not know who had written them, and then cited as scripture by church writers who did not know who wrote them…..I find this highly implausible and improbable .

*While, I do not believe the Gospels ever were anonymous, even if we did take the viewpoint that the original writings did not include titles and these titles were indeed added later, it is unreasonable to believe that the authors of the Gospels were unknown and the titles arbitrarily added by the church. In order for the church to have accepted them as scripture it is far more likely that the church would have received these “untitled” Gospels and would have known exactly who they were by, even if this was simply in oral form and then this passed down. *

*This is purely a hypothetical reasoning IF the Gospels were anonymous, which I do not believe they were.*

It would have been beneficial for the church to name the apostles as the authors in order to give them credibility.

The attribution of the authorship of the Gospels to the disciples and those connected to the disciples of Jesus is often a claim made by those that assert the anonymity of the Gospels. This would give the Gospels a false authority. 

It is a claim made by Bart Ehrman in his book “How Jesus became God”:

“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.”
Bart Ehrman, How Jesus became God page 90

 

The claim is likely a true claim, if the Gospels really were anonymous. This of course presupposes that the Gospels were anonymous and so is a circular argument. However, this claim may hold some reasoned validity,  when it comes to the Gospels of Matthew and John, both being disciples of Jesus, if of course, the Gospels were written anonymously, but this argument doesn’t really make sense when it comes to the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Neither Mark or Luke were disciples of Jesus and, in fact, neither were even eyewitnesses to Jesus. There is simply no plausible reason to attribute the authorship of the Gospels to these two men if credibility for the Gospels was what was truly being sought by the early church.  It would have made much more sense and would have gained much more credibility to have attributed these two Gospels to men such as Bartholomew , James, Thomas, Andrew or Philip. In fact, seeing that Mark was understood to have written down the memories and stories of Peter, as attested to by Papias, it would have been much more logical and given much more credibility to have simply attributed the Gospel of Mark, to Peter. 

 

3rd person references in the Gospels.

Another common objection to the authorship of the Gospels being that of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is 3rd person references of the supposed authors within the Gospels themselves.

Matthew is named in the 3rd person in the Gospel of Matthew.

Matthew 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. KJV

It is generally believed that John is the disciple that Jesus loved most. In the Gospel of John, the author refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the 3rd person

John 13: 22 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. KJV

It should be no surprise that Bart Ehrman makes specific reference to this

“Moreover, Matthew’s Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what “they”—Jesus and the disciples—were doing, never about what “we”—Jesus and the rest of us—were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about “him,” not about “me.” Read the ac¬ count for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There’s not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.”
Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, page 104

 

However, this really is no objection at all. It was certainly not uncommon for writers to refer to themselves in the 3rd person within their own works. This is simply called Illeism, and it is actually not uncommon for writers to make use of this.

I shall just give a few examples here:

Greek historian Thucydides referenced himself in the 3rd person numerous times in his work “The Peloponnesian War”. I shall just quote the start of the work where he does this. 

“Thucydides an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out)”
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War Chapter 1

Josephus refers to himself in the 3rd person on numerous occasions in his own writings.

He refers to himself as Josephus the son of Matthias:

4. They also chose other generals for Idumea, Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of the high-priests, and Eleazar the son of Ananias, the high-priest; they also enjoined Niger, the then governor of Idumea, (32) who was of a family that belonged to Perea, beyond Jordan, and was thence called the Peraite, that he should be obedient to those forenamed commanders. Nor did they neglect the care of other parts of the country, but Joseph the son of Simon, was sent as general to Jericho, as was Manasseh to Perea, and John, the Essene, to the toparchy of Thamna; Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa, and Emmaus. But John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica, and Acrabattene, as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command.
   Josephus War of the Jews book 2 chapter 20I shall just give a few more examples of these 3rd party references to Josephus by Josephus

6. Josephus also, when he had settled these rules for determining causes by the law, with regard to the people’s dealings one with another, betook himself to make provisions for their safety against external violence; and as he knew the Romans would fall upon Galilee, he built walls in proper places about Jotapata, and Bersabee, and Selamis; and besides these about Caphareccho, and Japha, and Sigo, and what they call Mount Tabor, and Taricheæ, and Tiberias. Moreover, he built walls about the caves near the lake of Gennesar, which places lay in the lower Galilee: the same he did to the places of upper Galilee, as well as to the rock called the rock of the Achabari, and to Seph, and Jamnith, and Meroth; and in Gaulanitis he fortified Seleucia, and Sogane, and Gamala; but as to those of Sepphoris, they were the only people to whom he gave leave to build their own walls, and this because he perceived they were rich and wealthy, and ready to go to war, without standing in need of any injunctions for that purpose. The case was the same with Gischala, which had a wall, built about it by John the son of Levi himself, but with the consent of Josephus: but for the building of the rest of the fortresses, he laboured together with all the other builders, and was present to give all the necessary orders for that purpose. He also got together an army out of Galilee of more than an hundred thousand young men, all of which he armed with the old weapons, which he had collected together and prepared for them.
   Josephus War of the Jews book 2 chapter 20

2. However, John’s want of money had hitherto restrained him in his ambition after command, and in his attempts to advance himself. But when he saw that Josephus was highly pleased with the activity of his temper, he persuaded him, in the first place, to intrust him with the repairing of the walls of his native city [Gischala], in which work he got a great deal of money from the rich citizens. He after that contrived a very shrewd trick, and pretending that the Jews who dwelt in Syria were obliged to make use of oil that was made by others than those of their own nation, he desired leave of Josephus to send oil to their borders: so he bought four amphoræ with such Tyrian money, as was of the value of four Attic drachmæ, and sold every half amphora at the same price. And as Galilee was very fruitful in oil, and was peculiarly so at that time, by sending away great quantities, and having the sole privilege so to do, he gathered an immense sum of money together, which money he immediately used to the disadvantage of him who gave him that privilege; and, as he supposed, that if he could once overthrow Josephus, he should himself obtain the government of Galilee, so he gave orders to the robbers that were under his command to be more zealous in their thievish expeditions, that by the rise of many that desired innovations in the country he might either catch their general in his snares, as he came to the country’s assistance, and then kill him; or if he should overlook the robbers, he might accuse him for his negligence to the people of the country. He also spread abroad a report far and near, that Josephus was delivering up the administration of affairs to the Romans; and many such plots did he lay in order to ruin him.
   Jospehus war of the Jews book 2 chapter 21“Now Jotapata is almost all of it built on a precipice, having on all the other sides of it every way valleys immensely deep and steep, insomuch, that those who would look down, would have their sight fail them before it reaches to the bottom. It is only to be come at on the north side, where the utmost part of the city is built on the mountain, as it ends obliquely at a plain. This mountain Josephus had encompassed with a wall when he fortified the city, that its top might not be capable of being seized upon by the enemies. The city is covered all round with other mountains, and can no way be seen till a man comes just upon it. And this was the strong situation of Jotapata.”
   Josephus War of the Jews book 3 chapter 8

Of course, these self-references in the 3rd person do not in any way bring the authorship of Josephus into doubt.

 

We also have a 3rd person reference by Xenophon, who was a Greek historian and philosopher, in a writing called Anabasis:

“There was a man in the army named Xenophon, an Athenian, who was neither general nor captain nor private, but had accompanied the expedition because Proxenus, an old friend of his, had sent him at his home an invitation to go with him; Proxenus had also promised him that, if he would go, he would make him a friend of Cyrus, whom he himself regarded, so he said, as worth more to him than was his native state.”
Xenophon Anabasis book 3 chapter 1 section 4

 

Again, we do not doubt the authorship of this writing based on this 3rd person reference.

The usage of 3rd person self-refences is in no way an argument against the authorship for Josephus or Xenophon, and so to remain consistent, should not bring into doubt the authorship of the Gospels.

This was actually an argument that Faustus made in his debate with Augustine

“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.” Matthew 9:9 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 some one else under his name. Since, then, the passage already quoted would not be true even if it had been written by Matthew, since he was not present when Jesus spoke on the mount; much more is its falsehood evident from the fact that the writer was not Matthew himself, but some one borrowing the names both of Jesus and of Matthew.”
Contra Faustum, Book XVII , passage 1

 

This, just like the prior argument made by Faustus, was addressed by Augustine.

“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 on 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. We find examples in passages quoted above from Moses by Faustus himself, without any denial, or rather with the assertion, that they were written by Moses, only not written of Christ. When Moses, then, writes of himself, does he say, I said this, or I did that, and not rather, Moses said, and Moses did? Or does he say, The Lord called me, The Lord said to me, and not rather, The Lord called Moses, The Lord said to Moses, and so on? So Matthew, too, speaks of himself in the third person.”
Contra Faustum, Book XVII , passage 4

 

There is a small objection related to the act that there are times when the Gospel writer includes a piece of information where they themselves would not have been present. This objection is rather weak, and is easily answered by way of the usage of other peoples testimony. In other words, simply using the witness of a 3rd party.

Brant Pitre in his book “the case for Christ addresses this point.

 

“History gives us other examples of eyewitnesses that relied on other peoples testimony when composing biographies of their own teachers. For example, when writing his account of the death of socretes, the ancient Greek writer Xenophon (who was a disciple of Socretes) used the “reports” (Greek exengeile) of another disciple named Hermogenes (see Xenophon, Apology 1.2,10).12 The reason was the Xenophon was not present at the trial and death of Socretes, whereas Herogenes was.”
Brant Pitre, the case for Christ page 42 

Let’s have a look at what Xenophon wrote:

“Among the reminiscences of Socrates, none, as it seems to me, is more deserving of record than the counsel he took with himself 2 (after being cited to appear before the court), not only with regard to his defence, but also as to the ending of his life. Others have written on this theme, and all without exception have touched upon 3 the lofty style of the philosopher, 4 which may be taken as a proof that the language used by Socrates was really of that type. But none of these writers has brought out clearly the fact that Socrates had come to regard death as for himself preferable to life; and consequently there is just a suspicion of foolhardiness in the arrogancy of his address. 5 We have, however, from the lips of one of his intimate acquaintances, Hermogenes, 6 the son of Hipponicus, an account of him which shows the high demeanour in question to have been altogether in keeping with the master’s rational purpose. 7 Hermogenes says that, seeing Socrates discoursing on every topic rather than that of his impending trial, he roundly put it to him whether he ought not to be debating the line of his defence, to which Socrates in the first instance answered: “What! do I not seem to you to have spent my whole life in meditating my defence?” And when Hermogenes asked him, “How?” he added: “By a lifelong persistence in doing nothing wrong, and that I take to be the finest practice for his defence which a man could devise.” Presently reverting to the topic, Hermogenes demanded: “Do you not see, Socrates, how often Athenian juries 8 are constrained by arguments to put quite innocent people to death, and not less often to acquit the guilty, either through some touch of pity excited by the pleadings, or that the defendant had skill to turn some charming phrase?” Thus appealed to, Socrates replied: “Nay, solemnly I tell you, twice already I have essayed to consider my defence, and twice the divinity 9 hinders me”; and to the remark of Hermogenes, “That is strange!” he answered again: “Strange, do you call it, that to God it should seem better for me to die at once? Do you not know that up to this moment I will not concede to any man to have lived a better life than I have; since what can exceed the pleasure, which has been mine, of knowing 10 that my whole life has been spent holily and justly? And indeed this verdict of self-approval I found re-echoed in the opinion which my friends and intimates have formed concerning me.
Xenophon, Apology 1-10

Were Jesus and the disciples illiterate?

A common argument against the Gospels having been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is that they would not have been able to write the Gospels as they would have been illiterate.

“There are good reasons for thinking that none of these attributions is right. For one thing, the
followers of Jesus, as we learn from the New Testament itself, were uneducated lower-class Aramaic speaking Jews from Palestine. These books are not written by people like that. Their authors were highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation.”
Bart Ehrman , How Jesus became God page 90

 

As a believer in an inspired scripture, I can simply argue that it would not be impossible for God to inspire the Gospel writers to have written their Gospels even if they were illiterate. Nothing is impossible for God.

However, this admittedly is not going to be persuasive to those who do not affirm this statement and belief. Those, like Bart himself.

Here, I shall offer a less faith based response to Mr Ehrman’s assertions.

 

Jesus was clearly not unskilled, despite not having formal training, in fact, we have clear attestation that Jesus was indeed skilled in scripture.

John 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

And we know that Jesus could at least read the scriptures. Jesus literally read from the scroll of Isaiah having been able to find the exact point where he would then quote from.

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him

 

In the Testament of Levi, a late 1st Century/Early second Century work, it specifically states to “teach your children letters” and “Reading unceasingly the law of God.”

2 And do ye also teach your children letters, that they may have understanding all their life, reading unceasingly the law of God.

Testament of Levi chapter 13

Ok, this is in relation to the Torah, but it does show that Jews were expected to be able to at least read their own law.

 

 

But what about the Gospel writers as that is what we are specifically focusing on in this study.

Matthew:

Matthew is clearly described as being a tax collector, this would have required him to have been able to write and as he was working on behalf of the Romans it is almost certain that he would have been able to write Greek.

Matthew 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

Luke:

Luke was a physician and so clearly educated

Colossians 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

There is no reason to assume that he would not have been able to write.

Mark:

Mark is understood to have been a travelling companion of Peter,  and as already seen it is Mark that is understood to have written the Gospel. Mark was the “secretary” of Peter as Bart Ehrman himself states:

“Mark the secretary of Peter”
Bart Ehrman, How Jesus became God, page 90

It is therefore, extremely unlikely that Mark, was an uneducated, illiterate lower-class Jew. Mark wrote the stories and memories of Peter that he had heard from Peters own mouth.

John:

That just leaves us with John. John was a fisherman. We shall address his ability to read and write in a moment.

 

Bart makes further claims about illiteracy.  In his book, Forged, Bart Ehrman after laying down the foundations of demonstrating that the vast majority of 1st Century Palestine would have been illiterate, and that Peter was from “a backwoods Jewish Village made up of hand-to-mouth laborers who did not have an education” he states:

“As a lower- class fisherman, Peter would have started work as a young boy and never attended school. There was, in fact, probably no school there; if there was a school, he probably didn’t attend; if he did attend, it would have been in order to receive rudimentary training in how to read Hebrew. But that almost certainly never happened. Peter was an illiterate peasant”.

Bart continues his argument:

This should come as no surprise, really. As it turns out, there is New Testament evidence about Peter’s educational level. According to Acts 4:13 both Peter and his companion John, also a fisherman, were agrammatoi, a Greek word that literally means “unlettered”, that is “illiterate”.
Bart Ehrman, Forged, page 73

 

So, there are a number of issues that we need to address here.

Firstly, Peter did not write any of the Gospels and so obviously his level of education and literacy does not affect them. It would only become an issue when examining the author of 1st and 2nd Peter.

 

But let’s look at the claim that Acts 4:13 demonstrates that both Peter and John, were illiterate.

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. KJV

As Bart correctly notes the Greek word used of Peter and John is agrammatoi. However, the usage of the word does NOT necessitate that Peter and John were both illiterate as Bart claims.

 

The two men were also referred to as idiótés, meaning unskilled, amateur or private. 

Neither of these two words demand that Peter and John were illiterate.

Firstly, while agrammatoi, CAN mean illiteracy, it also has the meaning of being uneducated, especially in Rabbinic teaching. It must be noted that this is the only place in the New Testament where this word is used. It is simply an incorrect assertion that we must automatically understand the usage of agrammatoi here as illiteracy simply because it can have that meaning.  The fact that this is used along with the word idiótés, it is far more likely that the two men being called “unlearned” and “ignorant” was in relation to their education and lack of skill when it came to being learned in the scriptures and not in relation to their ability to read or write. 

 

In fact, the NLT actually translates the verse as such:

Acts 4:13 The members of the council were amazed when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, for they could see that they were ordinary men with no special training in the Scriptures. They also recognized them as men who had been with Jesus.

The Aramaic Bible in plain English renders this, “they did not know the scrolls”

Acts 4:13 And when they had heard the discourse of Shimeon and of Yohannan, that they spoke it openly, they perceived that they did not know the scrolls and that they were uneducated, and they were amazed at them and recognized them that they had lived with Yeshua.

 

Secondly, the verse actually states that Peter and John were PERCEIVED to be agrammatoi and idiótés, this does not mean that they actually were. This was simply what others had understood them to be. We must also note that despite this initial perception, they then also MARVELLED. So, even if we were to use Bart’s assertion that this is in relation to illiteracy, Peter and John may have at first been understood to be illiterate and unskilled or amateur men, but this was obviously shown otherwise.

But what about Bart’s claim that Peter was from a “backwoods Jewish Village made up of hand-to-mouth laborers who did not have an education”. Is it at all possible that those from backwoods Jewish villages could at least speak Greek?

 

Peter, and his brother Andrew were from Bethsaida

John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Notice the verse also states that Philip was from the same town.

Later on in the Gospel of John we find some Greeks who come to Philip asking to see Jesus.

John 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: 21The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

So, either these Greeks spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, which is almost certainly not the case, OR Philip was able to speak Greek. If Philip was able to speak Greek there is no reason that Peter would not have been able to do so, based simply on where he was from. Obviously this does not directly address Peters literary capabilities but it certainly dismisses any claims of a lack of Greek based on the town he was born and raised.

It actually likely demonstrates that most people in Israel at the time of Jesus would have been bilingual, especially as they had been occupied by the Greeks and then the Romans (who would also have spoken Greek) for over 300 years. As most trade would likely have been done in Greek, it would have been a necessity to have have spoken Greek regardless of occupation.

Jesus and the disciples often spoke with non Israelites and so it is almost impossible to claim that they would not have been able to at least speak Greek.

 

Even if John and Peter were illiterate at the time of acts. This in no way would have stopped them from learning to read and write after the death of Jesus. 

 

In reference to a very famous Rabbi, Rabi Akiba, D.A. Carson writes,

“Rabbi Akiba was apparently unlettered until the age of forty, and then became one of the greatest rabbis of his generation; it would not be surprising if some of the leaders of the church, decades after its founding, had devoted themselves to some serious study.”
D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, p.74.

 

Obviously we do not have any historical information that would attest to John or Peter having learned to read and write, if they couldn’t before,  but it is not beyond possible.

We should not simply dismiss John’s literacy level based purely on the fact he was a fisherman. It is also possible that as part of his role as a fisherman he would have had to have been able to deal in contracts, receipts and tax work which would have required at least some form of literacy.

 

 

Usage of a scribe

Here , we need to look at the possibility that one or more of the Gospel writers (and the authors of other New Testament books) employed the use of a scribe and that they did not themselves actually write the words but rather relayed them to a scribe who wrote down what the “authors” dictated to them. This in no way would take the authorship of the Gospels away from those that relayed the information to the scribe. 

 

Let’s ask a world renown scholar for their opinion on this matter. But of course, WHO should we ask? I wouldn’t want to be accused of bias, so why don’t we ask one who has a view contrary to what I am arguing. …hmm, how about Bart Ehrman. He seems like a good person to ask seeing he has written so much on this subject.

In an interview on “The Infidel Guy Show”, (real name Reginald Finley), Bart Ehrman was asked a question about the possibility of Paul having used a scribe in his writings.

 

“Aren’t there some theories that suggest that maybe Paul, himself, had a scribe that wrote for him?”
Reginald Finley

Bart replies:

“Every person that wrote Epistles in the ancient world dictated them to scribes”

Bart Ehrman

 

Paul was in prison for a long time and it is possible that he would have had to have used a scribe to write down his words.

“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”
Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus Page 38 

 

Even slaves were taught to read for the benefits of their masters as Bart attests to.

“How many could read? Illiteracy was widespread throughout the Roman Empire. At the best of times maybe 10 percent of the population was roughly literate. And that 10 percent would be the leisured classes—upper-class people who had the time and money to get an education (and their slaves and servants taught to read for the benefit of such services to their masters).”
Bart Ehrman, Jesus interrupted, page 105

Bart literally answers his own objection to the disciples being able to write Gospels if they were, in fact, illiterate. The employment of scribes to write for those that could not, or even simply who did not have the time to do so,  was commonplace as attested to by Bart himself.

Josephus, who spoke Greek, employed the help of others in order to help him with his Greek:

“Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history of those transactions.”
Josephus, Against Apion book 1:9:50

 

 

So, whether or not John, being a fisherman, was illiterate, it is certainly not beyond the realms of reasoning that he could have employed a scribe who he simply dictated the words to, who then wrote those words down as John dictated. And the fact is, scribes could have been used by ANY of the New Testament writers.

The usage of a scribe simply dismantles any objection against Matthew, Mark Luke and John based on their being illiterate or not.

 

 

Allusions to the “Authors” of the Gospels.

While the Gospel writers do not specifically identify themselves in the text, is possible that the Gospels do actually give us clues as to the authors and those behind the stories:

 

In the Gospel of Mark, which we know from Papias was the stories of Peter told to Mark, we find a reference to “his disciples and PETER”.

Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Obviously Peter is a disciple. No other disciple is singled out. It is odd to have the disciples and Peter rather than just the disciples. There is no reason for this here. When we look at the parallel passage in Matthew and Luke the reference to Peter is not found. We simply get the refence to the disciples.

Matthew 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

Interestingly in the Gospel of John, while we do get a reference to Peter, we also get a reference to the disciple whom Jesus loved.

John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. 5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

It is generally accepted that this disciple is John.

This disciple, whom Jesus loved, is the one who leaned on the bosom of Jesus at the last supper.

John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

We know that only the 12 disciples were at the last supper with Jesus.

Matthew 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
The beloved disciple, identifies himself as the one who wrote the Gospel of John. In the discussion between Peter and Jesus where we have the reference to the loved disciple and whether or not he shall live until Jesus returns, THAT beloved disciple, states that testifies and wrote the things. 

Mark 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. 18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

Luke 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

The writer of the Gospel of John identifies himself as THAT beloved disciple.

John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Whether or not John is this beloved disciple, what is certain is that the writer of the Gospel specifically identifies himself as THAT disciple. The author of the Gospel of John at the very minimum claims to be one of the 12 disciples of Jesus.

There is more perspective from a Petrine point of view in the Gospel of Mark. Another example is found in the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree.

Mark 11:12And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

When the disciples see the tree the next day, in the Gospel of Mark Peter is again singled out.  Peter is the one recorded as addressing Jesus, but Jesus in his reply answers THEM:

Mark 11:20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. 22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

 

In the parallel account in Matthew, there is no singling out of Peter, rather “THEY marvelled, saying” and then Jesus answering THEM.

Matthew 21:18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

In Mark 1:36 Simon (Peter) is again singled out

Mark 1:35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. 36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him. 37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee. 38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth. 39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.

In the parallel passage in Luke there is no mention of Peter

Luke 4:42 And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them. 43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent. 44 And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.

There is also possible allusion to the author of the Gospel of Matthew.
In the Gospel of Matthew we find the 3rd person reference to Matthew in Matthew 9:9 as already demonstrated.

Matthew 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

But in the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke Matthew is called by his HEBREW name Levi:

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

Luke 5: 27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.

Matthew is also noted as being a publican (tax collctor) Greek telónés

Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Whereas in the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke , he is simply referred to as Mathew.

Mark 3:13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. 14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

While these subtle emphasis “hints” may be an allusion to the Gospel writer, it almost certainly would not be reason enough to name the Gospel of Matthew as such if it were anonymous.

Paul also refers to himself as Paul rather than his Hebrew name Saul.

 

The clues in the Gospel of Luke are slightly more complicated but, with a little investigation we can extract them.

The author of Luke is also the author of the book of Acts.

At the beginning of the Gospel of Luke the author addresses the writing to Theophilus

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus

At the start of the book of Acts the author again addresses Theophilus and makes specific reference to his former treatise (book or account), Greek λόγον Logon, of all the things that Jesus began to do and teach 

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach

Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach NIV 

Acts 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, ESV

Acts 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,
NASB

This is a clear reference to the Gospel of Luke where the author recorded the the things that Jesus did and taught. Whoever the author is, they claim to have written both books.

In the book of Acts, there are  number of passages where the author refers to “we”. In chapter 16:6-17 we are told of a story about a vision of Paul telling him to go to Macedonia. The author then refers to “WE” who went to Philippi in Macedonia, clearly including himself in the story.

Acts 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them 11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; 12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.

The author then continues on with the reference to “WE” and “US”

Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.15  And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us 16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 

So the author of Acts was a travelling companion of Paul.

The author again uses “we” in Acts 20:5-16; Acts 21:1-18; Acts 27:1-28 and Acts 28:16.

Acts 28:16 is an important “we” reference as it places the author in Rome with Paul at the time that Paul is imprisoned.

Acts 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.

In 2 Timothy, an Epistle Paul wrote in Rome, Paul clearly states that only LUKE is with him.

2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Now we know that others were in Rome with Paul during his time in Rome but only Luke remained with him.

So as only Luke remained with Paul in Rome and the author of Acts claims to have been in Rome with Paul. Luke therefore, must be the one who is claiming to have written the Book of Acts.  As Acts and the Gospel of Luke are both written by the same person, Luke must be also claiming to have written the Gospel of Luke.

Of the men that had gone to Rome with Paul, there is simply no evidence, from manuscripts, history or internal attestation that would support any of these men as the author, except Luke.

 

Taken alone, I do not think that any of the evidence that has been provided is strong enough to categorically prove that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors of the Gospels, although I do think that each piece of evidence does stand up to the claims made when dealing with each individual claim on its own. However, when taken all together, I do believe that the weight of evidence most certainly falls on the side for the traditional authorship of the Gospels and anyone who would argue against this would have to explain the information provided here and prove otherwise. 

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere