Who wrote the Gospels and when are the Gospels written ?

• Craig is a professor of New Testament at the Denver Seminary since 1986.
• Here is Craig's home webpage: click here

• The Gospels are anonymous (authors name are not mentioned in the Gospels)

• Testimonies of the early chruch fathers (in particular Eusebius) state that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the disciple).

• Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260 - c. 340) is the first "Church Historian".

  He wrote "History of the Church" covering the period of the first Apostles down to his own days.

• Here is a webpage containing his work: click here

• Here is my local copy: click here

1. Irenaeus (120-203 AD -- click here ) in regard to the authors of the scriptures:

   "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia." ---- In "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, and also quoted in Church History, Book V, Chapter 8 (See: click here )

2. Eusebius on the composition and order of the 4 Gospels in "History of the Church", citing Clement of Alexandria (150-213 --- click here):

   Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposeis], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e. Matt and Luke], he says, were written first. The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion. (My comment: MARK was written before Luke) As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7 - See: click here )).

3. Here is a webpage detailing the portion of "History of the Church" related to the authorship of the Gospels is here: click here

• Bible scholars believe that the Gospels were written in the following order:
  Mark - Matthew - Luke - John

  They say this based on the observation that some material in Matthew and Luke may be copied from Mark....

  Clement however, said that the order is:

  Matthew - Luke - Mark - John

• The authorship of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are not in dispute and confirmed by writing of early Church Fathers (bishops)

• The authorship of John is uncertain, because there were 2 different John's - Papias mentioned "John the apostle" and "John the Elder" and it is not clear which John wrote the "Gospel of John".... However, from the way that the "Gospel of John" was written (it mentions that the Gospel was written by the disciple loved by Jesus), the gospel is attributed to "John the apostle".

• So:

  all 4 gospels were written by people who either witnessed the events first hand (Matthew and John) or by people that are intimately acquainted to people that witnessed the events first hand (Mark was a good friend of Peter and Luke is the "beloved physician" of Paul).

• In other words: the event that they recorded are based on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony

  We can be assured that the information recorded in very accurate (or else they deliberately lied)

The following extra information further confirm the authorship of the 4 Gospels:

• There are no competing authors

• The lack of prominance of the first 3 authors substantiates the fact that they were the geniune authors:
  • Matthew was a hated tax collector
  • Mark was the travelmate of Peter and was not part of the original disciples of Jesus
  • Luke was the travelmate of Paul and was also not part of of the original disciples.

  The reason that they are mostly be the genuine author is the following:

  If you were gonna fabricate some gospel about Jesus, you would want prominent authors - like Peter to give it more "weight".

• If you think that there are only 4 Gospels were written, you are wrong.... There are many many more.

• The are many apocryphal gospels that have been dated much later - they often carry "heavy weight" names, for example:
  • The Gospel of Thomas (Dated around 150 AD)
  • The Gospel of Peter (Dated around 130 AD)

  These gospels are rejected by the Church leaders at that time (who were naturally the people with the right skill and knowledge to judge on this matter) as apocryphal (false teachings)

  (See the Canon of the New Testament later for more details)

• Just to give you a taste why these gospels by "famous" apostels were rejected:
  • Gospel of Thomas - Dated around 150 AD: click here

    Gospel of Thomas, 13: Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like" Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just (righteous) messenger". Gospel of Thomas, 114: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life" Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male.... For every female who makes herself malewill enter the kingdom of Heaven"

    Compare what you read in the gospel of Thomas to the 4 Gospels and you conclude that if the 4 Gospels report true facts, then the gospel of Thomas is either lying, or is an "interesting work by a novelist - writing from his/her imagination.

  • Gospel of Peter - Dated about 130 AD click here :

    This gospel starts off very convincingly.... but when you reach about the end, when it tells the event of the resurrection, you start to suspect the author:

    Verse 9: ... (3) and they (the soldiers who were guarding the tomb) saw the heaven opened and two men descending shining with a great light, and they drew near the tomb. (4) The stone which had been set on the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was opened and both of the young men went in. My comment: There were NO eyewitnesses to the resurrection. This must be fantasy... The fantasy gets even better: Verse 10: ...they saw three men (the two men that went inside the tomb and the third is probably Jesus) come out of the tomb, tow of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them My comment: Wait, it gets even better: The head of the two they saw (the two angels) had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them went beyong heaven --- In other words: the reseurrected Jesus was HUGE....

    First, no one was present when the stone was rolled away - certainly not Peter. The description of the stone rolling away must be from someone's imagination.

    Second, the authentic Gospels never reported a cross following Jesus...

    Third, the authentic Gospels tell us that the resurrected Jesus was as normal as He was before He was crucified. He was not HUGE with a head reaching beyond the heaven....

  The early Church fathers were very careful on what to accept as "Gospel": one of the criteria was that the document must be written by someone who knew Jesus or someone who was a long time company with someone who knew Jesus

• Human memory fades and humans tends to make stories more fantastic than what they were

• On the other hand, when an event is written down, the accuracy (truth) of the event is perserved longer because it is no longer depending on human memory

• The length of time between the event and the date of the recording of the event is a very important measure for accuracy:
  • If the recording of the event is within one generation (about 70 yrs or so), then the recording is very accurate - because within one generation, hostile witnesses will testify against the writing and false writing will usually die away (poorly perserved)

• The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles (i.e., those that reject Christianity) is:
  • Mark was written around 70 AD
  • Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD
  • John was written around 90 AD

• There are evidence that all gospels were written before 70 AD, but even with such a liberal dating, all gospels are wriiten within the lifetime of various EYEWITTNESSES of the life of Jesus INCLUDING hostile ones

• This fact is important - human nature being what it is - if false teaching about Jesus were going around (e.g., that Jesus' resurection was false), these hostile witnesses would make sure any false teaching were corrected

• Legends are untrue or unverifiable stories handed down from the pasts

• It is common to beautify important historical events - so called legend development

• For example:

  The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by

  • Arrian

  • Plutarch (47-121 AD) in "Lives" around 100 AD
    • Here is a Biosketch of Plutarch: click here
    • Here is a page on Alexander by Plutarch click here

  Alexander died in 323 B.C. - so Plutarch wrote about Alexander about 400 years after the death of Alexander

  Historians consider these work generally trustworthy

• Later writings did emerge later and they contained legendary material

• Legend material can develop when the account of the event is written down long after the event took place - typically more than 2 or 3 generations.

• The Gospels were written within a very very shorter time after the happening of the events - 40 years or so after Jesus' death (compare that to the 400 years after Alexander's death when Alex's history was written down !)

  Furthermore, because the Gospels were written within ONE generation, the hostile witnesses that witnessed the same events that the disciples were preaching were also alive and they can testify against the New Testament IF THE GOSPEL WAS FALSE.

  Now:

  There are NO HISTORICAL RECORDS found that indicate that the hostile witnesses testified that the gospel material was UNTRUE,

  Instead, we DO find HISTORICAL RECORD where these hostile witnesses were trying to CREATE ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE (SAME) EVENTS REPORTED BY THE GOSPELS

  Example: "The disciples stole the body" see Matthew.

  This strongly support that the events reported in the Gospels are in fact the true and are NOT legends !!!

Examples of hostile testimony can be found in the Gospel and other writings

1. Matthew reports that Jewish leaders trying to "explain away" the resurrection by saying that "the disciples stole the body" (see Matthew 28:13-15):

   ....they gave enough silver to the soldiers. saying: "Say that His disciples came by night and stole His body away while we slept.".... And taking the silver, they did as they were taught. And this saying was spread amongthe Jews until today.

   What can we learn from this ?

   That Jesus did die, was buried and his body is really gone.

   What can we conclude what is happening back then:

   • Jesus' disciples were preaching that Jesus had resurrected. The Jewish leaders did not believe that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah.

   • All the Jewish leaders had to do to shut Jesus' disciples up was to produce Jesus' dead body and show it to the people.

   • Yet, they could not do that because they had a problem: the dead man's body is gone...

   • They had to "explain it away" - their explanation: Jesus' disciples stole the body....

   Think ! Who do YOU believe ?

   • Does the story that the disciple stole the body make sense ?

   • What evidence do you have that they didn't steal Jesus' body ?

     Let me tell you that we have historical evidence that many of Jesus' disciples die a horrible death because they refuse to preach a "different gospel" - there are written records that Paul and James (Jesus' brother) were persecuted.

     I know of human nature: a human does not willingly (by one's own choice) give up one's life for a belief that he/she knows that it is a lie

     Yes, there are people who gave up his/her life for a lie that he/she thought was true. These are person who have been fooled. But nobody, and I repeat: nobody will sacrifice his/her own life for a belief that he/she knows it is a lie.

     So you may be thinking that Paul and James were fooled... Well, the problem is: they started the Christian relegion - see, nobody told them what to believe - they went out and told the people about Jesus having resurrected from the dead. Now, if the resurrection was a lie, then Paul and James would have invented this lie... Now do you think that a person would die for a lie that was invented by himself ???

   • Also, it is a basic fact that a dead person will normally remain dead. So, if you have seen someone die and later see that same person alive again (Paul and James said they did), then I can understand why one would rather die than to change one's believe - even under persecution (Paul and James got killed for their belief in Jesus)....

2. The Jewish Talmud and Josephus reported that Jesus used "sorcery" to lead people astray....

   What can we learn from this ?

   That Jesus did perform miracles....

   Here is another example where the hostile witnesses DID NOT DENY the fact that Jesus performed many UNEXPLANABLE DEEDS

   They can't explain the miraculous things that Jesus did, and instead of DENYING it the Jewish leaders "explained" it away (by saying that Jesus was a soccerrer rather than admitting that He was the Messiah (or even a prophet)).

1. Jesus predicted that the Temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed and the Temple was indeed destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans.

   The gospel writers would certainly include this historially important fact but did not - the reason they omitted it may be because the gospels were written before 70 A.D.

2. Acts was written by Luke after Luke has written the Gospel of Luke.

   At the end of Acts, Luke describes Paul being in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. - and ends without telling us the fate of Paul

   Paul was executed by Nero and Nero died in June 68 A.D.... so Paul was executed before that 68 A.D. - if Luke knew about his death, he would certainly wrote about it.

   So Acts was probably written between 62 A.D. and 68 A.D, most likely in 62 A.D. when Paul was under house arrest (Luke was with him and he had time writing).

   Since Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke before Acts, this gospel would be written before 60 A.D. - which is only about 30 years (a very short time !!!) after Christ's resurrection !

• Paul's journey in Galatia and the Greek island did not leave behind many churches but - and probably his most important legacy - a large number of letters (that he wrote to the churches that he has established)

• The Gospels were all written after Paul's letters !

• the Crucifixion occured around 30 A.D.

• Paul's conversion occured around 32 A.D.

• Paul's first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem occured around 35 A.D. ( Acts 9:26)

• Paul's ministry probably began in the 40's A.D.

• Paul's letter were probably written in the 50's A.D.

• Conclusion: Paul's letter were written in a very short 20 years after Christ's resurrection - within the lifetime of many many many eyewitnesses - favorable and unfavorable ones.

All fundamental creeds of Christianity are confirmed in Paul's letters

1. Creed: "Jesus is (Son of) God" - (God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ.... 1 Corinthians 1:9)

2. Creed: "Jesus died for our sins" - (For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures.... (1 Corinthians 15:3) )

3. Creed: "Jesus resurrected from the death" - (..., that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3) )

• Paul's first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem occured around 35 A.D. (after Paul met Jesus and got blind in Damascus)

• Paul's letter to the Corinthians mentioned that "he received some teaching that he is passing on" (the teaching are the creeds in 1 Corinthians 15):

  For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. Afterwards He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until the present day, but also some fell asleep. Afterwards, He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also.

• So in 35 A.D. - only a 3 or 4 years after Christ's death and resurrection - when Paul spoke with Peter, he was told that "Christ died for our sins", "He was buried", "He rose again the third day" and "He was seen by Cephas....".

  That is WAY TOO SHORT a time to form any legends !!!

1. The Gospels report the "ugliness" of their leaders

   Suppose, just suppose that the Gospels were legends; suppose that the disciples were inventing a new religion....

   What do you think they would do ?????

   THINK !

   If you are gonna invent a new religion to ATTRACT a lot of people, you want the leaders of the new religion to be as immaculate/perfect as possible... (Who would want to follow a criminal or scumbag as a religious leader ???)

   Take Peter for example - the leader of the disciples. Would Peter - being one of the main man of this newly invented religion - invent a gospel where he denies Jesus not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES ???? Would Peter portraited himself as a COWARD in his own invented religion ???

   Peter - the leader of the apostles and the most important pillar of the early Christian church - denied Jesus not once, but three times. The Gospels could have easily omitted this fact, but did not !

2. No man will die for his own lies

   Most of the original Disciples of Jesus were persecuted to death. If they have invented this "gospel" themselves, they would know it is a lie. Human nature is such that:

   • Some man will die for the truth
   • Some man may even die for a lie invented by someone else
   • But NO man will die for a lie invented by himself