The four Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are the foundational witnesses to Christ’s life and teaching. Yet, the question of authorship has been a battlefield, with the traditional view on one side and critical scholarship on the other. The evidence supporting traditional authorship, nevertheless, remains remarkably substantial, as we shall see, when examined without sceptical presuppositions. For us who trust in Scripture’s reliability, this isn’t merely an academic question but one that touches the very foundation of our confidence in the Gospel narrative as trustworthy testimony.

 

TRADITIONAL VIEWS: WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED

The earliest explicit views on Gospel authorship come from the second century, though evidence suggests these views were already widely accepted by then. Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60-130 AD) provides our earliest testimony regarding Matthew and Mark. According to Eusebius, Papias wrote, “Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew language” and “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered.”

By the late second century, Irenaeus of Lyons explicitly names all four Gospel authors in Against Heresies (c. 180 AD): “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language,” “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,” “Luke, the companion of Paul,” and “John, the disciple of the Lord.”

What’s notable is the consistency in these views. Despite geographical dispersion and various theological disputes in the early church, no competing views emerged.

 

MATTHEW: TAX COLLECTOR TO GOSPEL WRITER

The traditional view is this gospel was written by Matthew (also called Levi), the tax collector whom Jesus called to be one of the Twelve. As an eyewitness and apostle, Matthew would have firsthand knowledge of Jesus’ ministry.

Modern scholarly challenges: Many scholars question Matthew’s authorship based on several factors: (1) Matthew appears to use Mark as a source, which seems unusual if Matthew was an eyewitness; (2) the sophisticated Greek composition seems unlikely for a Jewish tax collector; and (3) the Gospel doesn’t emphasise the author’s personal experiences with Jesus.

Evidence supporting Matthew’s authorship: Several points strengthen the traditional view: (1) As a tax collector, Matthew would likely be bilingual and skilled with documentation; (2) the Gospel shows particular interest in financial matters and numerical organisation, consistent with Matthew’s background; (3) the self-identification as “Matthew the tax collector” in the apostolic list (10:3) may reflect authorial humility; and (4) the early church had no reason to attribute this Gospel to a relatively minor apostle unless the connection was authentic.

 

MARK: PETER’S INTERPRETER

John Mark, mentioned in Acts as a companion of Paul and Barnabas and later associated with Peter (1 Peter 5:13), wrote this Gospel based on Peter’s preaching and testimony. Though not an apostle himself, Mark served as Peter’s interpreter and recorder.

In addition to Papias, Justin Martyr refers to “the memoirs of Peter” when quoting from Mark. Clement of Alexandria, too, describes how Mark wrote at the request of Peter’s hearers in Rome. The anti-Marcionite prologue (c. 160-180 AD) likewise connects Mark’s Gospel to Peter.

Modern scholarly assessment: Most contemporary scholars accept Mark as the earliest Gospel, which seems to confirm part of the traditional view—that a non-eyewitness wrote this account. The vivid details, somewhat unpolished style, and portrayal of Peter (including his failures) align with the traditional attribution as Peter’s testimony recorded by Mark.

Evidence supporting Mark’s authorship: The Reformed tradition sees in Mark’s Gospel the authoritative testimony of Peter under the Spirit’s inspiration. The Gospel’s focus on action, emphasis on discipleship despite failure, and vivid details of scenes where Peter was present all support this connection. Mark’s role as compiler doesn’t diminish the Gospel’s authority but roots it in apostolic witness.

 

LUKE: THE CAREFUL HISTORIAN

Luke, “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14) and companion of Paul, authored both this Gospel and Acts as a two-volume work. Though not an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, Luke conducted careful research among those who were present.

Examination of the “we” passages: Acts contains several passages where the narrative suddenly shifts to first-person plural (“we”), indicating the author’s personal presence during Paul’s journeys (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). These passages provide compelling evidence the author was indeed a companion of Paul—consistent with the traditional attribution to Luke.

Historical methodology: Luke’s prologue (Luke 1:1-4) explicitly describes his research method: investigating “everything from the beginning,” consulting “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,” and writing “an orderly account.” This methodical approach is consistent with what we would expect from an educated physician and historian like Luke.

Luke’s status as a careful researcher under the Spirit’s guidance exemplifies how God uses human instruments with their distinctive skills and perspectives to communicate divine truth.

 

JOHN: THE BELOVED DISCIPLE

John, the son of Zebedee and one of Jesus’ closest disciples, wrote this Gospel in his later years. As one who leaned on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper, John offers an intimate, theologically rich account of Jesus’ life and teaching.

Though never naming himself directly, the author identifies as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20-24), clearly an eyewitness and one of the inner circle. The detailed knowledge of Jewish customs, Jerusalem’s geography before its destruction, and intimate scenes from Jesus’ ministry all suggest an eyewitness account.

Theological depth: John’s Gospel uniquely balances profound theological reflection with precise historical details. Its distinctive portrait of Jesus complements the Synoptics rather than contradicting them, suggesting a different but authentic perspective.

Addressing scholarly concerns: While many scholars date John’s Gospel to 90-100 AD, recent archaeological and textual discoveries suggest an earlier composition is possible. The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal John’s theological language was at home in first-century Palestinian Judaism. Even with a later date, John the Apostle could have lived long enough to compose or oversee this Gospel, as early church tradition consistently maintained.

 

WHY AUTHORSHIP MATTERS

Connection to apostolic testimony: The Gospels’ authority derives primarily from their apostolic origin—either written by apostles themselves (Matthew and John) or by those with direct access to apostolic testimony (Mark via Peter, Luke via Paul and other eyewitnesses). This apostolic connection grounds the Gospels in historical reliability rather than later legend.

Implications for canonical authority: The early church recognized the Gospels as authoritative precisely because of their connection to the apostles whom Jesus commissioned. The Reformed tradition has always emphasised this apostolic foundation for canonical authority.

Inspiration and human authorship: Reformed theology affirms that God’s inspiration works through, not despite, human authors with their distinct backgrounds, perspectives, and literary choices. Knowing the authors helps us appreciate how God used their unique contributions while preserving them from error.

Impact on reading and application: Understanding the human authors illuminates the text’s meaning and purpose. Matthew’s Jewish focus, Mark’s connection to Peter’s testimony, Luke’s historical concerns, and John’s intimate knowledge of Jesus all shape how we interpret their distinct emphases.

 

ADDRESSING MODERN CRITICAL THEORIES

Overview of form criticism: Beginning in the early 20th century, form criticism suggested the Gospels emerged from anonymous communities rather than individual authors, with stories shaped by church needs rather than historical memory. This approach minimised the role of eyewitnesses and traditional authors.

Strengths and weaknesses of scholarly consensus: While critical scholarship has provided valuable insights into the Gospels’ literary features and cultural context, its scepticism toward traditional authorship often rests on circular reasoning and assumptions rather than evidence. The rejection of eyewitness testimony reflects philosophical presuppositions more than historical necessity.

Recent scholarly trends: Several recent scholars, including Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses), have challenged the form-critical consensus by demonstrating the importance of eyewitness testimony in first-century historical writing and the Gospels specifically. Archaeological discoveries continue to confirm the Gospels’ historical accuracy, indirectly supporting their connection to knowledgeable sources.

Reformed engagement with scholarship maintains healthy scepticism toward both uncritical traditionalism and hypercritical revisionism. We can appreciate scholarly insights while recognising when assumptions rather than evidence drive conclusions that undermine traditional authorship.

 

CONCLUSION: WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS?

The traditional view of Gospel authorship—Matthew the tax collector, Mark as Peter’s interpreter, Luke the careful physician-historian, and John the beloved disciple—stands on far stronger historical ground than critics often acknowledge. Early church testimony, internal textual evidence, recent archaeological discoveries, and even contemporary scholarship’s gradual shift toward valuing eyewitness accounts all reinforce these ancient attributions. Believers can confidently approach Scripture knowing it comes not from anonymous communities but through identifiable witnesses connected to Christ’s apostolic circle—trustworthy testimonies preserved through divine inspiration so that we, like generations before us, might encounter the living Christ through their faithful witness.

 

WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS? RELATED FAQs

Were the Gospels initially anonymous, as some scholars claim? While the Gospels don’t contain explicit authorial signatures such as “I, Matthew, wrote this,” this doesn’t mean they circulated anonymously. Ancient works often identified authorship through titles. The universal acknowledgement the Gospels were written by these specific authors—and the absence of competing traditions—strongly suggests they were indeed the authors.

• If Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, doesn’t this damage their credibility as eyewitness accounts? Not at all—ancient historians regularly consulted written sources even when they had personal knowledge of events. Matthew, as an apostle, may have used Mark’s account as a structural framework while adding his own eyewitness material and teaching collections. Luke explicitly states he consulted multiple sources alongside eyewitness testimony, reflecting thorough historical methodology rather than lack of authority.
• How do we explain the sophisticated Greek in the Gospels if they were written by Galilean fishermen? The objection overlooks several important factors. Matthew, as a tax collector, would likely be bilingual and literate in financial documentation. John may have used a scribe or amanuensis (secretary), a common practice in antiquity, with John 21:24 possibly hinting at a community of elders helping finalise his account. Additionally, Galilee was more cosmopolitan and multilingual than often portrayed.

Why do sceptical scholars date the Gospels so late, and does this undermine traditional authorship? Sceptical datings typically rest on circular reasoning—assuming, for instance, the predictions about Jerusalem’s destruction must be written after 70 AD rather than being genuine prophecy. Even with later dates (70-100 AD), the traditional authors could still be responsible: Matthew and John as apostles, and Mark and Luke as their slightly younger companions. Richard Bauckham and others have demonstrated eyewitness testimony was carefully preserved in this period, not replaced by communal legend.

• If John’s Gospel is so different from the Synoptics, can it really come from an apostle? John’s differences actually support apostolic authorship rather than undermining it. As the last living apostle writing decades after the others, John intentionally supplemented the Synoptics rather than repeating them, focusing on extended teaching discourses and Jerusalem ministry that the others covered less fully. His intimate knowledge of Jesus’ inner thoughts, Jewish customs, and pre-destruction Jerusalem geography all point to an eyewitness rather than a later theologian.
• Why didn’t the Gospel authors identify themselves clearly within the text? Ancient biographical works often didn’t include explicit authorial self-identification—focus remained on the subject, not the author. Moreover, the apostles’ emphasis on humility and community meant they downplayed their individual importance. Both Matthew and John refer to themselves in the third person when appearing in the narrative, following ancient historiographical convention rather than modern autobiographical practices.

How did the early church determine which Gospels were authentic and which weren’t? The early church applied rigorous criteria to distinguish authentic apostolic writings from later fabrications. Only those Gospels with clear connections to apostles or their close associates were accepted as authoritative. The contrast between our four canonical Gospels and later second-century “gospels” is striking—the canonical texts are early, rooted in Jewish contexts, restrained in miraculous accounts, and historically anchored, while later forgeries show anachronistic theology, excessive miracles, and clear theological agendas.

 

WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS? OUR RELATED POSTS

• Bible Manuscripts: Why Earlier Isn’t Always Better
• Historical Accuracy of the Book of Acts: A Treasure Trove of Evidence
• Why Do We Affirm the Bible’s Reliability? Five Compelling Reasons
• Divine Fingerprints on Ancient Parchment—The Dead Sea Scrolls
• Archaeology Endorses Scripture: Papyri and Dead Sea Scrolls
• New Testament Reliability: Debunking Myths and Lies
• Archaeological Finds Validate Bible: Unearthing Biblical Truth