Receive reasons to believe
< Find all the Reasons here
EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE
La Bible
n°66

Palestine

 1st century

The authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses, or close contacts of eyewitnesses

Some critics claim that the Gospels are historically unreliable because they were written anonymously, long after the death of the apostles. However, this opinion is disproved by all the historical data in existence. The traditional attribution of the Gospels to Luke, Matthew, Mark and John is historically credible. Matthew and John were both true eyewitnesses; Mark and Luke, two of their close associates. The historicity of the Gospels is a fundamental question, because it shows that their accounts come directly from reliable sources, and it lends their authors great credibility.

Detail from The Four Evangelists by Jacob Jordaens, 1625-1630, Musée du Louvre / © CC0/musée du Louvre
Detail from The Four Evangelists by Jacob Jordaens, 1625-1630, Musée du Louvre / © CC0/musée du Louvre

Reasons to believe:

  • External sources supporting the traditional attribution of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John abound, starting from the second century. There are six such sources within a period of 150 years: Papias of Hierapolis (who wrote around 125), Saint Justin Martyr (around 150), Saint Irenaeus (around 180), Saint Clement of Alexandria (around 190), Tertullian (around 207) and the Muratorian fragment (around 160-170). By contrast, other famous works of Antiquity are referenced by only one author.
  • All the ancient manuscripts of the Gospels in our possession come with complete titles: "The Gospel according to Matthew", "The Gospel according to Mark", etc. No Gospel manuscript in existence is missing its title and author. If these texts had first circulated anonymously, we would see a lot of competing authors and multiple attributions (as was the case with the Epistle to the Hebrews), yet it is not the case. 
  • Before the year 400, no one ever questioned the traditional attributions. Even opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus, admitted that the Gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
  • Lastly, the early Church had no reason to lie about the Gospel authors. Apart from John, the evangelists are not prominent figures who could have lent more credibility to the Gospels. Mark and Luke are not among the Twelve apostles, and Matthew couldn't have been the most popular figure since he was a former tax collector (a pretty despicable type in 1st-century occupied Palestine). If the Church had wanted to arbitrarily assign authors, these were poor choices: it would have preferable to attribute those texts to more well-known and prestigious figures such as Peter, James, Thomas or Andrew.

Summary:

How can we be sure that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? By studying what the earliest historical sources tell us about these texts. If the Gospels had initially circulated anonymously, it is certain that we would now have a multiplicity of attributions regarding their authorship. But this is not the case. Tradition has always held that Matthew's Gospel was written by Matthew; Mark's by Mark (Peter's interpreter); Luke's by Luke, who was a physician (Col 4:14) and Paul's companion; and John's by John, the son of Zebedee.

 

Historical sources

These facts are confirmed by six primary historical sources, each from different authors, scattered throughout the world. One literary work's author being attested and referenced by multiple sources is a rare occurence for that time period: the common rule is that some works' authors are attested by just one source. As an example, if we take Tacitus' famous Annals, we find that only Saint Jerome asserts that Tacitus is its author, and this a whole 300 years after the publication of the original version! On the other hand, here is the list of the six oldest sources attesting to the traditional authorships of the Gospels:

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (around 125)

Around the year 125, Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis (in today's Turkey) who knew Saint John, declared (as reported by Eusebius of Caesarea): "Matthew therefore wrote the oracles in Hebrew, and everyone interpreted them as they could. Mark, who had become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately, but in no particular order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. In fact, he did not hear the Lord and did not follow him, but afterwards, as I have said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but without intending to give a coherent account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark did not make mistakes in writing down certain things as he remembered them. Indeed, he was careful not to omit anything he had heard and not to report any falsehoods" (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, 39).

Justin Martyr (around 150)

Around the year 150, Saint Justin Martyr called the Gospels the "Apostles's memoirs" and certified that they had been written by them: "Indeed, the apostles, in the memoirs they composed and which are called Gospels, have transmitted to us what was prescribed to them" (First Apology, 66).

Muratori fragment (circa 170 AD)

The Muratori fragment, dated by most experts - Christian or otherwise - to around 170 AD, tells us that Luke and John were indeed the authors of the Gospels. The beginning of the fragment is missing, and it ends abruptly. But as, after an incomplete sentence, it speaks of the third Gospel as being that of Luke, and then of the fourth Gospel as being that of John, historians admit that the missing part at the beginning of the paragraph must have mentioned the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:

"[...] The third book of the Gospel is that of Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after Christ's ascension, and when Paul had taken him with him as a zealot for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [general] belief. However, he had not seen the Lord in the flesh, and so he began to tell the story from the birth of John, since he was in a position to establish these events. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples".

Irenaeus of Lyon (around 180)

In the year 180, Saint Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, himself a disciple of Saint John, gave a precise account of the origin of the four Gospels as a whole: "Matthew published for the Hebrews, in their own language, a written form of the Gospel, at the time when Peter and Paul were evangelising Rome and establishing the Church there. After their death, Mark, Peter's disciple and interpreter, also wrote down what Peter preached. For his part, Luke, Paul's companion, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by Paul. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, the same who had rested on his breast, also published the Gospel while he was in Ephesus" (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III, 1, 1).

Clement of Alexandria (c. 180-200)

Around 180-200, Clement of Alexandria reported: "Mark, a disciple of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel in Rome in the presence of some of Caesar's knights and giving many testimonies about Christ, at their request to leave him a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called Mark's Gospel, from the things said by Peter, just as Luke is recognised as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of Paul's Letter to the Hebrews(Adumbrationes in epistolas canonicas).

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 207)

Finally, around the year 207, Tertullian mentions that the Gospels were written by the apostles (John and Matthew) and the apostolic men (Luke and Mark): "First of all, I affirm that the Gospel documents were written by the apostles and that the task of promulgating the Gospel was imposed on them by the Lord himself [...]. In short, among the apostles, John and Matthew implanted the faith in us, while among the apostolic men, Luke and Mark reaffirmed it "(Against Marcion, Book IV, 2, 1-2).

These sources provide us with early external confirmations of the four Gospels and their authors. It is also important to note that these references come from very different places: Turkey, Palestine, Italy, France, Tunisia, and Egypt. When the testimonies of ancient witnesses from geographically distant regions all converge, the evidence cannot be stronger.

No tradition or testimony has ever contradicted this attribution, as would have happened if the Gospels had been written anonymously. Even the enemies of Christianity, such as Celsus, recognise that the evangelists are indeed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Before the end of the fourth century (and Faustus of Mileve), no one, not even heretics, dared to dispute the attribution of the Gospels.

 

Manuscript confirmation

It is important to note that all the ancient manuscripts of the Gospels are signed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Brant Pitre, in his book The Case for Jesus, lists them in "The Manuscript Evidence: No Anonymous Gospels", which can be consulted on this page. There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels among the existing manuscripts.

On the contrary, if we look at the Epistle to the Hebrews, we see that the identity of its author was debated from the earliest centuries, because it was a truly anonymous text. Some Fathers of the Church attributed it to Paul, others to Barnabas, others to Clement of Rome, and still others to Timothy, so that Origen of Alexandria, at the end of the second century, gave up trying to find its real author: "As to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, only God knows" (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, 25, 14).

 

A collective lie?

Finally, if the early Christians had wanted to lie about the authors of the Gospels, why not attribute them to more popular figures? Why not choose two of the twelve apostles who had direct contact with Jesus, rather than Mark and Luke, unknown associates ?

Mark is rarely mentioned in the New Testament as a whole, and not always in a flattering way: he abandoned his first mission in Pamphylia, causing Paul to refuse to take him on another mission (Acts 15:37-40). Since this incident was known, Mark would obviously not have been the best pick for a random attribution of Gospel authorship.

As for Luke, Paul's companion, his first name is mentioned only three times in the whole New Testament(Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11 ; Phlm 24), making him a much less interesting choice than other better-known disciples of Paul, such as Timothy (mentioned twenty-five times), Titus (mentioned thirteen times) and Silas (mentioned twelve times). A forger would therefore never have had the idea of attributing the writing of the Gospel or the Acts of the Apostles to Luke unless Luke really was the author.

We can also be sure that forgers would have picked another name than Matthew, who was somewhat an obscure apostle. What's more, his Gospel was written specifically to preach the Good News to the Jews, an affront to them since he was a former tax collector (Mt 9:9), a type of man hated by the Jews, who considered tax collectors to be on the side of the Romans and sinners (Mt 9:11).

In short, apart from John, the names of the evangelists are not those that would have come spontaneously to the mind of a smart forger who would have wanted to establish the authority of these texts. Peter, Thomas or James would have been more attractive and trustworthy authors. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the traditional attribution is correct.

 

In conclusion

The Gospels are indeed eyewitness accounts, and include two accounts whose authors were in direct contact with eyewitnesses. This considerably strengthens the historical credibility of these texts and demonstrates that they are not myths or late legends, but detailed biographies of the life and teachings of Jesus, based on real facts and filled with first-hand information.

Matthieu Lavagna, author of Soyez rationnel, devenez catholique!


Going further:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, ‎ IVP Academic; Second Edition, Revised, Second (October 18, 2007)


More information:

Share this reason

THE REASONS FOR THE WEEK

La Bible , Conversions de juifs
D’extraordinaires prophéties annonçaient la venue du Messie
La Bible , Conversions de juifs
Straordinarie profezie preannunciavano la venuta del Messia
La Bible , Conversions de juifs
Profecías extraordinarias predijeron la venida del Mesías
La Bible , Conversions de juifs
The unique prophecies that announced the Messiah
La Bible
Le Nouveau Testament est fiable, c’est l’archéologie qui le dit
La Bible
Il Nuovo Testamento è affidabile, lo dice l'archeologia
La Bible
Archaeological finds confirm the reliability of the New Testament
La Bible
El Nuevo Testamento es fiable, lo afirma la arqueología
La Bible , Conversions de juifs
Le temps de la venue du Messie a aussi été précisément prophétisé
La Bible , Conversions de juifs
Anche il tempo della venuta del Messia era stato profetizzato con precisione
La Bible , Conversions de juifs
The time of the coming of the Messiah was accurately prophesied
La Bible , Conversions de juifs
También se profetizó con precisión el momento de la venida del Mesías
La Bible
Les Évangiles ont été écrits trop tôt pour être des légendes
La Bible
I Vangeli sono stati scritti troppo presto per essere delle leggende
La Bible
Los Evangelios se escribieron demasiado pronto para ser leyendas
La Bible
The Gospels were written too early after the facts to be legends
La Bible
Le Nouveau Testament est le manuscrit le mieux attesté de l’Antiquité
La Bible
El Nuevo Testamento es el manuscrito mejor atestiguado de la Antigüedad
La Bible
The New Testament is the best-attested manuscript of Antiquity
La Bible
Le Nouveau Testament n’a pas été corrompu
La Bible
Il Nuovo Testamento non è stato corrotto
La Bible
El Nuevo Testamento no ha sido corrompido
La Bible
The New Testament was not altered
La Bible
L’onomastique est en faveur de la fiabilité historique des Évangiles
La Bible
L'onomastica sostiene l'attendibilità storica dei Vangeli
La Bible
La onomástica apoya la fiabilidad histórica de los Evangelios
La Bible
Onomastics support the historical reliability of the Gospels
Jésus , La Bible
La peinture ultraréaliste des tortures et douleurs du Messie par le prophète Isaïe
Jésus , La Bible
L'immagine estremamente realistica dei supplizi e delle sofferenze del Messia da parte del profeta Isaia
Jésus , La Bible
La descripción hiperrealista que hace el profeta Isaías de las torturas y sufrimientos del Mesías
Jésus , La Bible
The prophet Isaiah's ultra accurate description of the Messiah's sufferings
La Bible
Les auteurs des Évangiles sont des témoins oculaires, ou de proches associés de ces témoins
La Bible
Gli autori dei Vangeli sono testimoni oculari, o loro stretti collaboratori
La Bible
The authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses, or close contacts of eyewitnesses
La Bible
Los autores de los Evangelios son testigos oculares o allegados de testigos oculares.
Jésus , La Bible
Le prophète Daniel a annoncé un « fils d’homme » qui est le portrait du Christ
Jésus , La Bible
Il profeta Daniele ha annunciato un "figlio dell'uomo" che è il ritratto di Cristo
Jésus , La Bible
Daniel's "Son of Man" is a portrait of Christ
Jésus , La Bible
El profeta Daniel anunció un "hijo del hombre" que es el retrato de Cristo
La Bible
84 détails du livre des Actes des apôtres sont confirmés par l’histoire et l’archéologie
La Bible
84 dettagli del libro degli Atti sono confermati dalla storia e dall'archeologia
La Bible
84 details in Acts verified by historical and archaeological research
La Bible
84 datos del libro de los Hechos de los Apóstoles son confirmados por la historia y la arqueología
La Bible
Le critère d’embarras prouve que les Évangiles ne peuvent pas être un mensonge
La Bible
Il criterio dell'imbarazzo dimostra che i Vangeli non possono essere una menzogna
La Bible
El criterio de la vergüenza demuestra que los Evangelios no pueden ser mentira
La Bible
The criterion of embarrassment proves that the Gospels tell the truth
La Bible
Le critère de dissimilarité renforce la fiabilité des Évangiles
La Bible
Il criterio di dissimilarità rafforza l'attendibilità dei Vangeli
La Bible
The dissimilarity criterion strengthens the case for the historical reliability of the Gospels
La Bible
El criterio de disparidad refuerza la fiabilidad de los Evangelios
La Bible
La prophétie du Temple détruit est stable, malgré Julien l’Apostat