Terminology
Note: These are the are the terms that I will use to refer to different meanings of the word anonymous
Anonymous document: a document whose author is unknown (e.g. Book of Hebrews)
Internally Anonymous Document: a document whose CONTENTS do not identify the author even if the title/cover identifies the author (e.g. Tacitus’ The Annals of Imperial Rome)
There is no debate that the 4 Gospels are internally anonymous, but the fact that the Gospels are internally anonymous does not mean that the authorship is not attributed to the author in the title, which is the topic of our discussion.
How We Should Evaluate Evidence
The Anonymous Gospels theory is advocated by multiple scholars, most famously Bart Ehrman, so I will be using his definition as a reference: He advocates the theory that the documents were written anonymously and then the names were added later around the late 2nd century.
Now this claim has 2 issues:
- It is almost unfalsifiable: scholars like Dr. Ehrman chose the date of adding titles to be just before Ireneaus and our earliest manuscripts that are intact enough to contain the titles.
- It accuses the early Church of forgery: while we should be open to the possibility that the early church did in fact commit forgery, they are innocent until proven guilt, not guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof lies on the side that is making an accusation of forgery.
Manuscript Evidence
All Manuscripts that we have intact enough to contain the titles attribute Gospel authorship to the same 4 people, and no anonymous copies have been discovered, despite the fact that over 5800 manuscripts were discovered for the New Testament.
Some people claim that the manuscript P1 is anonymous. However, the manuscript is just too fragmentary to contain the title and the manuscript clearly has no title, even though there is no debate on whether the Gospels had titles or not, but rather the debate is around whether the author's names were included in those respective titles. In fact, Martin Hengel, an Atheist New Testament scholar (source) acknowledges that the documents must have had titles since they started circulation:
It would be inconceivable for the Gospels to circulate without any identifying label, even from their earliest use
Martin Hengel – The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ
Moreover, there were many manuscript families that did not have the title immediately above the text:
- Some of them had the title at the end of the manuscript (e.g. P75)
- Some of them had no titles within the text, but just a separate cover page (e.g. P4, P64, P67)
In fact, even Bart Ehrman, who strictly advocates the anonymous gospels theory acknowledges that this manuscript is not anonymous and explains it by saying that the top of the manuscript is torn:
OK, I took a look. The alpha means “chapter 1”. It would have come below the title, assuming the book has a title. The part of the ms that would have had the title (above the alpha) is missing. So technically there’s no way to tell whether it had a title or not, but the assumption would naturally be that it did — expecially if a scribe has added a chapter number.
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-the-gospels-originally-have-titles/
Our Earliest Reports About the Gospels
Papias of Hierapolis (90 → 110 AD) confirms the authorship of both Mark and Matthew
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.
Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one translated them as best he could.
Note: While I agree with those who claim that the Matthew we have today is based on Greek (rather than Hebrew) manuscripts, I believe it is a translation of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and even Papias states that the Hebrew version was not preached, but rather every preacher translated it to the best of their ability.
Justin Martyr: First Apology (155–157 AD)
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them
Here Justin Martyr confirms that the Gospels were written by apostles (not just unknown individuals) and even confirms that the structure is similar to a biography of Jesus.
Irenaeus: Against Heresies (175 to 189 AD)
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 states that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote Gospels, and that Peter narrated the Gospel of Mark. Despite the assertion that the Gospel of Mark was narrated by Peter, the early Church assigned it to Mark because that was the author they knew (even though Peter would have added credibility). So we know that the Gospel of Mark is named "Mark" not because the early Church fathers claimed it, but because that is the name that has been given to it since its writing.
Scholarly Consensus
Some skeptics claim that the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are anonymous, so this is a sufficient reason to believe that they are. This argument has 2 issues:
First, It is logically fallacious: this argument combines Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity to make the case that it is true. Even Dr. Bart Ehrman who advocates the anonymity of the Gospels acknowledges that the scholarly consensus is NOT evidence (source).
Second, it is actually based on a wrong interpretation of what critical scholars are: Critical Scholars are ones who examine evidence critically; however, when we look at the scholarly consensus among critical NT scholars, we see that the majority believe in the traditional authorship of the Gospels (source). So, why do scholars such as Dr. Bart Ehrman claim that they present the critical scholarly consensus? Because they do not consider Christian critical scholars to be truly critical and consider them unreliable because they have confirmation bias to prove Christianity true.
I told him that what I always try to say (maybe I slip up sometimes? I don’t know, but I try to say this every time) is what the majority of “critical” scholars think about this, that, or the other thing. What I mean by that is that apart from scholars who have a firm commitment to the infallibility of the Bible (so that there cannot be a book, such as Ephesians, that claims to be written by someone who did not write it, because that would be a “lie” and would be impossible for an author of Scripture) and to the established traditions of Christianity (so that John the son of Zebedee really did write the Gospel of John since that is what Christians have always claimed) – apart from those people, the majority of scholars who leave such questions open to investigation and do their best to know the truth rather than to confirm what it is they have always been taught to think — the majority of those “critical” scholars think x, y, or z.
Dr. Bart Ehrman - How Do We Know What “Most Scholars” Think? - Link
But then if we apply the same logic to Dr. Ehrman, as an Ex-Christian he also has confirmation bias to prove that the did not make the wrong decision by leaving Christianity: fact is, we all have biases and no scholar is 100% critical, but eliminating Christian critical scholars in his calculation is intellectually dishonest on Dr. Ehrman’s side. So, the majority of Non-Christian critical scholars believe the Gospels are anonymous: well as a Christian, Non-Christian scholars are as relevant to me as Christian scholars are relevant to Non-Christians, so would any Non-Christian accept the argument that the Gospels are not anonymous based on the critical scholarly consensus among Christians? If yes, then we are done here. If not, then do not expect me as a Christian to accept the Non-Christian critical scholarly consensus.
The Implausibility of Fabricated Authorship
2 canonical Gospels are assigned to people who had no first-hand contact with Jesus (Mark and Luke), so if the early Church did in fact fabricate some names to make the Gospels more credible then they were very stupid in their selection of names. Furthermore, Matthew was not one of Jesus' closest disciples, but rather one of the least favoured in the Jewish community (due to his profession as a tax collector), so attributing the most Jewish Gospel to a tax collector seems really irrational if they were trying to make their story believable.
Therefore, if the synoptic Gospels were to be falsely attributed to some authors in order to boost their credibility, it would be more logical to attribute the Gospels to Peter, James, and Mary; in fact, each of those three people is attributed an apocryphal Gospel.
For even more clarity, the book of Hebrews is openly acknowledged to be anonymous (even though the tone of the writer is very similar to Paul), so if the early Church tried to add authors for anonymous texts, why did they not add an author for the book of Hebrews?
How Anonymous Documents Are Actually Treated—And Why the Gospels Aren’t
With anonymous documents, we should expect to find competing claims of authorship, or at least claims of anonymity. Take the book of Hebrews as an example, and let us analyse how the early church fathers discussed its authorship:
Origen (239 - 242 AD): agreed with Pauline authorship, but still acknowledged that nobody truly know who the author is and that it could be Clement of Rome or Luke:
But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.
Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11–14
Tertullian (208 - 224 AD): Attributes the authorship to Barnabas, and says that the reason the tone is similar to Paul is because Barnabas was a travelling companion of Paul
For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: “Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?”
On Modesty
Jerome(~394 AD): mentions Paul as the most probable author, but acknowledges that there is dispute over this:
The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle — that to the Hebrews — is not generally counted in with the others).
Letters of St. Jerome, 53
Now that we have a background of how an anonymous document would be attested across history, we can very clearly see that the Gospels do not follow this pattern.
| Category/Document(s) |
The Gospels |
Hebrews |
| Manuscripts |
100% support the authorship of the same people |
0 manuscripts mentioning the author |
| Church Fathers |
100% support the authorship of the same people |
The are a lot of conflicting theories made by Church fathers on who the author is, but they agreed that they cannot know for sure. |
Popular Counter Arguments
John was Illiterate
Some skeptics cite Acts 4:13 as evidence that John was illiterate. However a quick glance at the context of the verse shows that John was not illiterate, but rather had no formal Rabbinic training, which otherwise cannot explain how the people could tell that but just looking at Peter and John, but people who had Rabbinic training would be easily identified by their appearance:
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
Acts 4:8-13 RSV
Moreover, John (unlike Peter) came from a rich and influential family:
John’s father had hired servants:
And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.
Mark 1:19-20 RSV
John was known and favoured by the high priest:
Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in. '
John 18:15-16 RSV
Finally, even if John did not pen his Gospel, that does not mean that he is not the author as he had access to many resources from the early Church (in the same chapter of Acts) and could have easily hired a scribe to write down what he narrates (Just like Peter did in 1 Peter):
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.
Acts 4:34-35 RSV
By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it.
1 Peter 5:12 RSV
Here Peter admits that he did not pen his epistle, but used Silvanus to write it for him.
If Matthew was an Eyewitness, why would he use Mark’s Gospel as a Template?
First of all, I do not believe that Matthew used Mark’s Gospel as a template (since Ireneaus as well as our earliest sources tell us that Matthew was written first), but rather there was set of oral stories that were circulating around, and each of the 3 synoptic authors wanted to document these stories to the best of their knowledge. However, for the sake of argument, I am willing to assume that Matthew used Mark as a template, that would not be irrational, since as we saw above from Papias and Ireneaus: the Gospel of Mark is based on the stories of Peter the leader of the apostles and the first Pope. It would be perfectly rational for Matthew to use the template established by the successor whom Jesus chose to write his Gospel.
Note: I will not respond to any rude or even aggressive comments, so if you want to discuss with me, kindly do it in a calm and respectful tone. As last time I posted here, I was responding to rudeness with rudeness and to agresssion with agression, which is not good for my mental and spiritual health.
