Are The Gospels Anonymous?

Thank you to Michael Jones and his ministry Inspiring Philosophy

You know the four Gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but many argue the Gospels were originally anonymous and the names were only added later to give them more authority.

But is this accurate? In the first century, were the Gospels entirely anonymous, and only when they were criticized did second-century Christians add names to give them more authority? Or are there good reasons to think the Gospels really did come from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Christian tradition teaches that two of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Matthew and John. The other two were written by followers of the disciples: Mark was a follower and interpreter of Peter, and Luke was a traveling companion of Paul.

But according to the consensus of New Testament historians today, there is no reason to think the Gospels were written by the men they are attributed to.

Bart Ehrman says:
“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).” – Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 101–102

David Carr and Colleen Conway say:
“All four of the canonical Gospels were originally anonymous. It was only in the second century CE, when the four Gospels were published as a collection, that the superscriptions were added to the Gospels, attributing authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively.” – Carr & Conway, A Contemporary Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts, 2nd ed., p. 233

Dale Martin says:
“We believe that all four Gospels were originally published anonymously, and the names they now bear were given to the four books later in order to link the books to disciples of Jesus or close disciples of disciples of Jesus…” – Martin, New Testament History and Literature, p. 20

However, within the past few decades, many scholars have been pushing back against this consensus and arguing the titles of the Gospels were most likely included when the Gospels were originally written, and they were always understood as having come from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

One of the reasons the traditional authorship of the Gospels is denied is because none of them internally mention an author either in the preface or main body. Thus, the Gospels are internally anonymous. But that doesn’t mean they ever circulated without names attached to them.

Simon Gathercole wrote in 2019:
“A lack of claim of authorship internally is entirely irrelevant to the question of the Gospel’s anonymity.” – Simon Gathercole, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels

The reason is that many ancient works were also internally anonymous. Xenophon didn’t include his name in Anabasis. Josephus left his name out of Antiquities of the Jews. Polybius, Diodorus, and Horace didn’t reference themselves in their works. Latin authors like Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus did not mention themselves internally.

Mike Licona adds:
“Julius Caesar does not identify himself as the author of his Commentaries on the Civil War, and he writes entirely in the third person, as the author of John’s Gospel may have done.” – Mike Licona, Are the Gospels “Historically Reliable?”, p. 5

Elmar Herkimer noted:
“This practice of an author leaving their name out of the body of their work was the standard norm.” – Herkommer, Topoi in den Proömien, pp. 48–49

Looking at ancient Greco-Roman biographies a genre the Gospels fit this internal anonymity was common.

Gathercole notes:
“The absence of the evangelists’ names should excite no comment at all. Such an absence is not remotely a ‘curious feature’.” – Gathercole, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels

The prologues of ancient technical handbooks often lack the author’s name.

Loveday Alexander notes:
She argues: 

“Luke’s prologue matches a standard medical or technical prologue from that time.” – Loveday Alexander, Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing, Novum Testamentum 28 (1986), pp. 48–74 (esp. 72–73)

Simon Swain says:
“It is perfectly normal for literary works to begin without a reference to their author. The author’s name should already be known to the reader or hearer from the usual devices.” – Swain, Simon. The Hiding Author. Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 55.

Gathercole continues:

“The absence of a name within the body of an ancient work is entirely understandable because of all the other ways in which the author might be identified. There were of course numerous ways of indicating an author’s name in or on a roll or codex, outside of the work itself.” – Simon Gathercole, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels

Ancient works often identified the author externally through a title, table of contents, header, end-title, back inscription, or tag attached to the scroll. So it’s plausible that the Gospels always came with titles attributing them to their respective authors.

But what of the claim that the four Gospels were not attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until the second century?

There are good reasons to think their titles were actually original.

First, Gospels would have needed identification when added to private church libraries. So it’s likely they came with external titles, just like other ancient works.

Second, it’s unlikely the Gospels would have circulated without names. Luke’s Gospel was sent to someone named Theophilus. (Luke 1:3)

It’s inconceivable Theophilus would receive a Gospel without knowing who wrote it.

Richard Bauckham explains:
“The author’s name may have featured in an original title, but in any case would have been known to the dedicatee and other first readers because the author would have presented the book to the dedicatee.” – Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 2017, p. 301.

Churches circulating Gospels would have asked about the source. Early father Papias only trusted traditions traceable to a disciple or elder.

So it’s unlikely anonymous Gospels would have been accepted.

Third, early Christian writings unanimously affirm Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors. No early source assigns different names.

Even early Gospel manuscripts (like P66 and P4) contain titles that match traditional authorship. No manuscript has ever been found with a different name.

Clement of Alexandria, Polycrates of Ephesus, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, and others affirm the traditional authors.

In the Acts of Peter and the Twelve (Nag Hammadi), the beloved disciple is identified as John. The Gospel of Thomas singles out Matthew as an authority.

“Peter was afraid to reply to him again. He motioned to the one who was beside Jesus, which was John: ‘You speak this time.’ In response, John said, ‘Lord, we are afraid to say many words in your presence….’” – The Acts of Peter and the Twelve 11.1–8.

Despite some differences in the order of Gospel composition, early sources still agree on who wrote them. The titles of the Gospels have remarkable similarity across manuscripts, which suggests the titles were added early before they spread around and other churches could add their own differing labels.

James D. G. Dunn notes:

“…the Gospels were not known by a variety of titles. Such an outcome was likely if the titles depended on recipients rather than the author; each recipient of an anonymous writing was likely to choose an identifying label most convenient to him. The fact, then, that the Gospels are almost universally known by the fuller title, ‘The Gospel according to . . .’, or simply ‘According to . . .’, strongly suggests that the title was given to each Gospel as soon as they began to be circulated, to be more widely known and used beyond their places of origin.” – Dunn, James D. G. Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Eerdmans, 2015, p. 49.

If the Gospels had been truly anonymous, we’d expect to see diverse attributions like we do with the book of Hebrews.

Gathercole says:
“This sort of diversity is exactly what we do not find in references to the authorship of the Gospels. Instead, we have unanimous agreement not Church Fathers trying to figure out who wrote anonymous biographies.” – Gathercole, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels

Names like Matthew, Mark, and Luke are unlikely forgers’ picks. Matthew was a tax collector despised by Jews. Mark and Luke weren’t even apostles.

Only John was a close disciple. Why not pick more prominent apostles if forging names?

Mike Licona notes:
“The best source attesting Plutarch’s authorship is the Lamprias Catalogue, written more than a century and perhaps more than two centuries after Plutarch’s death. Additionally, it is falsely attributed to Plutarch’s son. Still, no one questions Plutarchan authorship.” – Licona, Mike. Are the Gospels “Historically Reliable”? Risen Jesus Publications, 2020, p. 5.

The first person to tell us the Annals were written by Tacitus is Saint Jerome who was writing over 300 years after Tacitus. – Tacitus, C. The Annals. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. xxvii.

So why are the Gospels assumed to be anonymous, when the evidence strongly favors that they never were?

Martin Hengel says:
“Let those who deny the great age and therefore the basic originality of the Gospel superscriptions in order to preserve their ‘good’ critical conscience give a better explanation of the completely unanimous and relatively early attestation of these titles, their origin and the names of the authors associated with them. Such an explanation has yet to be given, and it never will be.” – Martin Hengel. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Trinity Press International, 2000, p. 55.

Scholars Quoted

1. Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them). HarperOne, 2009, pp. 101–102.
   
2. Carr, David M., and Colleen M. Conway. A Contemporary Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts. 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2021, p. 233.
   
3. Martin, Dale B. New Testament History and Literature. Yale University Press, 2012, p. 20.
   
4. Gathercole, Simon. “The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels.” Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 69, no. 2, 2018, pp. 447–476.
   
5. Licona, Mike. Are the Gospels “Historically Reliable”? Risen Jesus Publications, 2020, p. 5.
   
6. Herkommer, Elmar. Topoi in den Proömien. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1981, pp. 48–49.
   
7. Alexander, Loveday. “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 28, no. 1, 1986, pp. 48–74, esp. pp. 72–73.
   
8. Swain, Simon. “The Hiding Author.” In The Hiding Author: Context and Implication, edited by Ahuvia Kahane and Andrew Laird, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 55.
   
9. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 2017, p. 301.
   
10. Dunn, James D. G. Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Eerdmans, 2015, p. 49.
    
11. Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Trinity Press International, 2000, p. 55.
    
12. Tacitus, Cornelius. The Annals. Translated by A. J. Woodman, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. xxvii.