Who wrote the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? The question of their authorship has generated no small amount of discussion. Although the titular names are not part of the original (now lost) copies, for most of Christian history this has been uncontested: they have been understood to be written by the four early disciples of Jesus whose named are now attached to them.

However, this has been challenged in modern times. As it happens, none of the authors of the Gospels identify themselves by name in their writing, and many scholars have pointed out that the names were not attached to the earliest of the ancient copies of the Gospels. They have also claimed that the identity of Jesus as a divine “Son of God” figure cannot have emerged so early as the first century, and must instead reflect a date of origin hundreds of years after the time of the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

This challenge has not gone unmet. Prompted by these claims, other scholars have re-examined the evidence that points to the original authors. Some of this evidence is “internal” and comes from the written text of the Gospels themselves. Some of it is “external” and comes from other ancient sources, such as later writers of the early Christian era or information about the physical manuscripts themselves. The idea that the Gospels were written hundreds of years later is not taken seriously, since there are manuscripts of the Gospels dating to the early and mid-100s—copies of earlier originals that no longer survive.

Figure 1: A papyrus (paper made from reeds) fragment of an ancient copy of the Gospel of John known as P90. The surviving text includes lines from 18:36–19:7. This was one of many papyri found in a garbage dump in Oxyrynchus, Egypt. It is dated to around AD 125–150.

Figure 2: A page from the Gospel of John known as Uncial 0162, showing lines from 2:11–22. The page was made from vellum (animal skin) and was also found in Oxyhrynchus, Egypt. This is dated to the late AD 200s to early 300s.

What follows is a very brief outline of the case for the named authorship of each of the four Gospels. Fuller discussion can be read in the introductory sections to commentaries on each of the Gospels, or in “Introduction to the New Testament” textbooks. We begin with the Gospel of Mark, since it is commonly thought to be the one that was written first.

The Gospel of Mark

Figure 3: Portrait of Mark, early 800s

The title “According to Mark” was not regarded to be part of the text of the original Gospel, but came to be attached early on as a way of distinguishing it from the other Gospels. This shows that early on Christians believed that a certain “Mark” was its author. This Mark was expected to be the disciple mentioned numerous times in other parts of the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37; Col 4:10; Philem 24; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Peter 5:13). The fact that these biblical references mention him without any more specific identification points to him being a well-known person not needing to be specified.

This Mark seems not to have been one of the original followers of Jesus, although there is an unusual reference that is unique to Mark’s Gospel, which may be a form of self-reference. In the story about the arrest of Jesus, there is mention made of a young man running away (nearly?) naked into the night after struggling free in a scuffle, leaving behind the minimal clothing he had been wearing (Mark 14:51–52). No further detail is given on who this was or why it was included. Might it have been the author himself?

An early witness to this Mark being the author of “Mark’s Gospel” comes from a citation in a later writing. Eusebius in his History of the Church (3.39.15), written AD 325, quotes from an early bishop named Papias, residing in what is now Turkey until AD 130. He wrote:

“And the elder used to say this, ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord [Jesus]. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements about him.”

Several things are worth pointing out from this:

• Papias’ own source for this was “the elder”, who is likely the Apostle John, who had been a bishop in the same region as Papias, and one of the original followers of Jesus. This strengthens the claim made by Papias.
• The point Papias is trying to make concerns the content and truthfulness of this Gospel, despite the fact that Mark wasn’t a disciple of Jesus during Jesus’ life on earth, and despite the fact that they were not written down in a correct order. The authorship of Mark is taken for granted at this point—that is not a point being debated.
• Mark’s source for his Gospel was the Apostle Peter, one of Jesus’ closest friends and followers.

Later early Christian authors also asserted that this Mark was the author of this Gospel. They may have been simply echoing what they had heard from Papias’ account. Or they might have heard themselves from other earlier sources that Mark was the author.

It is noteworthy that there is no evidence that any other name was ever proposed for the authorship of this Gospel. Scholars who are critical of Mark being the author hold that there is not enough solid evidence, and prefer to say this Gospel must be regarded as anonymous. Scholars who hold that Mark was the author say that there are no grounds for dismissing the consensus opinion of the earliest Christians.

The Gospel of Matthew

Figure 4 Saint Matthew and the Angel by Rembrandt (1661).

The “Matthew” that this Gospel is thought to be named after was one of the “Twelve Apostles” who were Jesus’ closest followers. This Matthew is also known as Levi in other Gospels, and is also noted as being a tax collector (Compare Matthew 10:3 with Mark 3:16–19 and Luke 6:13–16, and the name change in the story in Matthew 9:9–13 with Mark 2:14–22 and Luke 5:27–32). It is possible but not definite that these “tweaks” in this Gospel indicate some self-reference by the author. Other features of the text of this Gospel tentatively point in the direction of this person being the author—but only tentatively.

A firmer pointer to the authorship of this Gospel again comes from the ancient historian Eusebius. Again citing Papias from the early second century, it is recorded that Matthew “collected the sayings of Jesus of the Lord in Aramaic, and everyone translated these as best they could” (3:39:16). Some of the words are unclear as to what precisely is meant, but it appears that Matthew was responsible for transmitting many teachings of Jesus.

Another claim comes from the church leader Irenaeus, writing in the late second century. He wrote that “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” (Against Heresies 3.1.1). Peter and Paul were put to death in Rome in the mid AD 60s.

Interestingly, the quote from Papias does not seem to indicate Matthew wrote a whole Gospel. If that is correct, there is an hypothesis which explains how the Gospel “of Matthew” came to bear his name—explained below:

Most biblical scholars are confident that the Gospel of Matthew was based on Mark’s Gospel—there are many very close similarities between the two, including sections that seem to have been copied word for word. Matthew’s Gospel contains about 90% of the content found in Mark’s Gospel. It is possible that someone compiled a new Gospel (i.e. “The Gospel of Matthew”, written in Greek, like the others Gospels). This Gospel combined the Aramaic language “sayings” that Matthew the apostle had recorded, together with the basic content and structure of Mark’s Gospel (which is itself light on Jesus’ teachings), as well as other material that is unique to Matthew’s Gospel. It is possible that this person was not Matthew himself, but an associate of Matthew who included sayings and stories provided by him.

This could explain how this Gospel was “according to Matthew”, even if he was not the author of the whole of it. Remember—the text itself makes no claim that Matthew was the author, and the added title “according to” need not imply direct authorship. Whatever the case, the Gospel “of Matthew” remains a valuable record of Jesus’ words and actions that comes from a source close to Jesus himself.

The Gospel of Luke

Figure 5 Armenian Icon artwork of Luke by Toros Roslin, 1200s.

The “Luke” thought to be the author of this Gospel refers to a non-Jewish disciple of Jesus who is mentioned at times throughout the NT as an associate of the Apostle Paul (Col 4:14; Philemon 1:24; 2 Tim 4:11). His writing style is more refined than most other authors of New Testament, pointing to someone of substantial literary education or training (one later writer mentions that Luke was a lawyer). This Luke is also noted as being a “physician”, which might account for the heightened attention to medical things in his Gospel when compared to the corresponding narratives in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.

The author of Luke’s Gospel is also the author of the Acts of the Apostles as seen by the corresponding openings (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1) and the similar language and style of writing. The author also narrates sections of Acts as an eyewitness, switching from a “third person” to a “first person” narrating (i.e. “they” to “we”, in Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–16; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This implies that the author of Acts (and therefore Luke) was from the first century and an eyewitness of some of the events he describes, even if he was not himself an eyewitness of Jesus himself (as implied by Luke 1:2).

The earliest manuscript of this Gospel dates to around AD 175–225 and has the name “Luke” titling it. No other contenders were put forward as the authors in the ancient world, despite the fact that the Christians by the second century placed higher value on writings by the Apostles—since Luke was not an Apostle, it is strange that his name would be attached to this Gospel without good reason. Other Christian leaders from the second and third century held that Luke was the author, and without any hint that this was doubtful (these include Marcion, the Muratorian Canon document, Irenaeus, and Tertullian). While Paul had other travelling companions who could plausibly have written Acts with its “we” passages, and therefore also the Gospel of Luke, none of them arise in the ancient evidence as candidates for authorship. The evidence we do have points comfortably to Luke the associate of Paul as the author of the Gospel that bears his name.

The Gospel of John

Figure 6: Portrayal of John from around AD 800, from a codex from Lorsch, Germany.

Several authors from the mid second century quote from this Gospel as an authoritative source, but make no mention of who the author was—presumably they knew and felt no need to say anything about that. It was not until the late second century that the name “John” is explicitly attributed to this Gospel, by Theophilus bishop of Antioch and by Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself also relates how an earlier church leader named Polycarp had known John (i.e. the Apostle) and others who had been with Jesus—this reveals a living link between John the Apostle and Irenaeus who held that this John was the author of the Gospel that carries his name. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria also attributed this Gospel to “John”, i.e. the Apostle.

As for evidence from within this Gospel itself, this one is like the other Gospels in that it does not itself identify its author by name. However, unlike the others, the writer does refer to himself indirectly. The writer refers numerous times to a “beloved disciple” who is present at key moments in Jesus’ life, and at the end identifies himself as that person (John 13:23; 19:26–27; 20:2–9; 21:20–24). By these references he is apparently one of Jesus’ closest followers and one of the twelve Apostles. By differentiating this unnamed “beloved disciple” from the named apostles in these narratives, and by recognising the disciple “John” who is important in the other Gospels is in fact absent from this Gospel, it is easy to see why the author of this Gospel has been thought to be John the Apostle. While other contemporaries from the time have been suggested by modern scholars, none fit so well as this John, and doubts about his position as the author of this Gospel have had answers given—which can be explored in the longer scholarly literature on the topic.

Final Comments

None of the four Gospels gave their author’s name—they apparently felt there was no need. This is quite unlike the later and spurious gospels (e.g. the so-called “Gospel of Thomas”), which included wildly different content from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but were insistent that they were written by figures who were close to Jesus. Given their content and later dating, these were evidently lying about their authorship.

Unlike these, the four Gospel writers had no need to say anything about themselves but instead focussed on who they were more interested in: the Jesus that they or their friends had known and loved. Because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote for their own Christian communities, they didn’t need to identify themselves and didn’t need to put their name on it. The first readers of the Gospels surely knew who the author was, and thanks to the pieces of evidence that remain today, we can be quite confident too.

Christian faith is grounded upon the testimony of the Gospels, not upon their authorship being connected to the names attached to them after they were written. Even if they were not written by the named authors, the Gospels are still very early sources, and very valuable witnesses to the words and actions of Jesus. This Jesus is God’s answer to God’s promises, who was crucified under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, but was resurrected on the third day after, and is said to have ascended to heaven and is now seated at the right hand of God, from where he will return to judge the living and the dead.

Explore