Q.43 No one has any idea who wrote the Gospels

The Gospel according to…

For the average Christian, the statement: “no one has any idea who wrote the Gospels” is nonsensical. In every Bible, printed at the top of each Gospel account, is the name of the author:

The Gospel according to Matthew
The Gospel according to Mark
The Gospel according to Luke
The Gospel according to John

Sometimes it’s listed in a simplified version with just the name:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

Before Bibles were printed, the name of the author was included with the handwritten documents, and the name of the authors were well established from the beginning of their widespread circulation.[1] So it is not true that “no one has any idea who wrote the Gospels.” What this doubter means is he doesn’t believe that the Gospels were written by the people traditionally accepted to be the authors. He rejects what the first Christians believed from the time of initial receipt of these texts even though this belief was later confirmed by the early church. The question of authorship does not even occur to most Christians who believe the entire Bible.

Apparently this questioner has been listening to liberal scholars who work to discredit the Bible and make people doubt even basic things about the Biblical accounts, from what’s in the Bible to who wrote the various books. For those who want to find reasons not to believe the Bible, there are plenty of liberal scholars who do not believe the Bible is the word of God and insist we can’t trust any of its content. As the scripture says:

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Tim 4:3)

Accordingly, since they don’t want to believe the Bible, and, specifically, that it is God’s words written by men chosen by God, they listen to scholars who tell them what they want to hear. So we have Bible detractors who say things like:

“The Bible is basically anonymous. I mean for the most part we don’t know who wrote the Bible.”[2]
Robert Cargill

Liberal, Bible-detracting scholar Bart Ehrman agrees the Gospels are anonymous. In the documentary series Bible Secrets Revealed he expounds his unorthodox views. But to cast further doubt on the reliability of the Bible, the creators of the series put his statements in a context which makes it appear that Ehrman takes an even more extreme view regarding authorship of the Gospels. They show Ehrman talking about books whose authors falsely claim well known people as authors, and make it appear that he is referring to the gospels. In the segment, Ehrman states that the authors lied about their identity, thus consigning each of the Gospels  to a category of unreliable and rejected texts called “pseudepigrapha”, which means false signature. The actual pseudepigraphal documents—the ones that were rejected from inclusion in the Bible—were rejected because they were clearly written much later than the Gospels, were falsely signed, and taught doctrines that are at odds with orthodox Christian doctrine. In the context of the Gospels, the documentary shows Ehrman saying:

“Many scholars are reluctant to call these books forgeries and so they call them ‘pseudepigrapha’ because nobody knows what pseudepigrapha means. Pseudepigrapha is a word that literally means a writing inscribed with a lie. Because the author is lying about his own identity.”[3]
Bart Ehrman

What are the “these books” he is referring to? In the brief scene it is not defined, only put in the context of the Gospels by the documentary writers/producers. But a quick check reveals that Ehrman only claims the Gospels are anonymous, not that they make false claims concerning the author.[4] Here is a clip so you can judge for yourself if the documentary wants you to believe Ehrman is speaking of  the Gospels as pseudepigrapha, or speaking about the well recognized pseudepigraphal documents – which do not include the Gospels. According to his writings, claiming the Gospels are pseudepigrapha appears to be a bridge too far for even the very liberal Ehrman. Unless of course he agrees with how his comments were presented. (Care to comment Dr. Ehrman?) So the documentary makes it look like Ehrman is calling the Gospels forgeries, when his actual stance is that they are anonymous. I point this out to show how false theories can be so easily propagated, how statements can be misrepresented, and how strong the desire is, in secular circles, to prove the Gospels and their authors are not reliable—in this case stooping to such rank misrepresentation.

The documentary has another scholar make more statements to make the Bible appear unreliable, stating that not only are the Gospels anonymous (or falsely signed if you believe their editing), but, also, that the books were written decades—perhaps up to a century—after Jesus died, and, worse, the writers of the Gospels didn’t even know Jesus:

“So we have four Gospels written by four different authors, decades—maybe as long as a century—after he died. And none of these authors actually met Jesus.”[5]
Candida Moss

To be clear, there are very liberal, Bible-denying scholars who not only doubt the traditional authors but also consider the four Gospels “functional pseudepigrapha”,[6] that is, though not technically falsely signed, they function in that manner.

On the other side, there are many Bible-believing scholars who support that the traditional names of the authors are correct. But let’s consider the objection and ask why the authors might lie about who actually wrote the book. Cargill gives this explanation:

“Nobody is going to listen to the ‘Gospel of Bob’. But if I put, I Paul, or I Peter, or I Moses—if I put it in the name of someone who has authority, then whatever I’m saying will be taken more seriously.”[7]
Robert Cargill

This may sound plausible initially, but given just a little reflection it becomes apparent that this doesn’t make sense and so is just a tool of liberal, Bible-denying scholars to deny the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

So let’s run through the scenario given a liberal understanding. Instead of the Gospels being written shortly after the death of Jesus, we will suppose they are written decades after the death of Jesus and later than the current conservative estimates of AD 40-70 for the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and possibly also for John (see below, note 9). Jesus died somewhere around AD 30-33. Assuming they are later than the traditional estimates, that puts the liberal dates at around AD 80-140. During that time, the only written documents the growing church would have had in this scenario would be the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude. We will immediately remove Jude from consideration, since the epistle is likely not from the apostle Judas (John 14.22), and there is already a gnostic, pseudepigraphal “Gospel of Judas” written in the second century that has already been rejected for good reasons. Let’s consider the remaining authors.

Paul’s letters were written between AD 40-60; Peter’s first epistle was composed before Nero’s fire and the persecution he brought against Christians by blaming them for the his fire in AD 64. Peter’s second epistle was likely written just prior to his death. That would place its creation around 64-68. For the epistle of James, who most scholars agree is the half brother of the Jesus (Gal 1.19), the most convincing arguments are for an early date before AD 50.[8] Regarding John, while some date his Gospel toward the end of the first century (AD 80-90), others see strong evidence that John wrote the Gospel early—right after the crucifixion—but the Gospel was not published and circulated until much later.[9] His epistles are recognized to be relatively late, about AD 85-90.

So let’s consider the theory. Under the “we don’t know who wrote the Gospels” theory, the canonical Gospels were written late. To get them to be accepted, the names of apostles were falsely attached to them. Matthew was not the eyewitness he claims to be, and Mark did not know Jesus, contrary to what many believe Mark 14.51 indicates, namely that Mark was there at Jesus’ arrest. Luke never claims to be an eyewitness. That’s why he: “…carefully investigated everything from the beginning…” (Luke 1.3)

In this scenario, the names of the apostles who wrote epistles—Paul, Peter, John—would be preferred. Yes, there is an epistle of James, but the James who wrote the epistle was not an apostle.[10] So the well-known apostolic names would have been Peter, Paul and John. James may have been known as a church leader but not an apostle. So, if you’re going to write a Gospel and falsely name it after a known name for recognition, why not name it after one of the apostles? These would have been Peter, Paul, or John and, less so, James, a church leader. So, we see why John would have been selected, but why Matthew, Mark and Luke? They would not have been well known.

Problem 1: The Name Recognition Problem

There is a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” problem here. That problem is: how did the names of Matthew, Mark and Luke become popular enough to be used for acceptance if there were no letters or Gospels attached to their name to make them well known? Who in the early communities to whom the Gospels were targeted would know them without having the Gospels associated with their names? Particularly since the intended audience of the Gospels was non-Christians, since the point of the Gospels is to persuade uninformed, unbelieving people to become Christians.

So, if you’re going for name recognition and authority among uninformed or minimally informed people, you select names people would know and recognize. That would be Peter, Paul or John—all of whom were well known to the authorities for the problems they were causing by preaching the new faith (Acts 4:18; 5:40) and thus likely known to minimally informed people as well. So, we understand why John would be selected, being a well known apostle who wrote epistles. We’ll come back to that. But why Matthew, a despised tax collector, or Mark, an unknown associate of Peter instead of Peter himself? Why choose Luke, a gentile associate of Paul, instead of Paul himself? As long as you’re lying (as some liberals claim the authors did), choosing those little-known names makes no sense if you’ve decided to lie to get name recognition and apostolic authority and thus acceptance.

This argument is confirmed because, actually, there is a pseudepigraphal “Gospel of Peter” dated to the second century (after Peter’s death in the first century around the time of Nero’s persecution of the Christians—so, clearly, falsely signed) that was in fact rejected due to it’s lateness and docetic tendencies.

Problem 2: The Unattributed Epistle

So name recognition—or lack thereof—is problem 1. Problem 2 is the Book of Hebrews. Hebrews is a book for which even tradition doesn’t tell us who its author was. Some say Paul. Some say Apollos, a learned man (Acts 18.24). Early Christian theologian Tertullian suggested Barnabas, a Levite (Acts 4.36). The point is, no one knows who wrote it. And here’s my point: no one falsely attached a name to it either. If the church was content to allow into the canon a letter whose author was unknown, but whose teaching was recognized to be inspired by God, without feeling compelled to falsely attach a name to it, why would Christians, who are supposed to be truthful, falsely attached a name to the authentic Gospel accounts?

Problem 3: The Moral Problem

Christians are called to be a truthful, moral people. Since the claim is the Gospels were written after the epistles, the early Christians would have the exhortations from the apostles to be truthful:

“Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices.”
(Col 3:9)

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.
(Eph 4:25)

The philosophy that believes “the ends justify the means” is condemned in scripture as the apostle Paul clearly states:

“Why not say–as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say–‘ Let us do evil that good may result’? Their condemnation is deserved.”
(Rom 3:8)

Lying is condemned, even in furtherance of a goal considered to be “good.” Further, Christians are instructed not to allow what they consider to be good to be spoken of as evil:

“Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.”
(Rom 14:16)

By providing a false signature, that person would be going against the many prohibition against lying, and, worse, once the lie was discovered, they would bring disrepute to themselves, the scripture(s) they lied about, and the entire Christian faith. So, why would they do that? Why risk turning new converts away? With all the prohibitions against lying, it’s hard to image someone would try to promote the faith by lying about who wrote the teachings.

Observation: Following a Greek Tradition?

Many have wondered why the Gospels’ writers didn’t include their names in the body of the text as most of the writers of the epistles did. Why is that? While we cannot be certain, two possibilities come to mind.

a. They were following the literary style of the Greek travel journey which did not include the author’s name. While the Gospels clearly expound a Christian message and Christian understanding of Jewish theology, texts, and events, some scholars have noted similarities between their style of writing and the literary style that encompasses Greek travel journeys like the Iliad and the Odyssey which were written centuries before the Gospels.[11] While these two Greek works have long been attributed to Homer, like the Gospels, the name of the author does not appear in the text.[12]

b. Was the name considered unnecessary due to familiarity?
After the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (Galilee) and restored Peter, John records:

“Jesus said to them, ‘Come and have breakfast.’ None of the disciples dared ask him, ‘Who are you?’ They knew it was the Lord.”(John 21:12 )

None of the disciples asked who this person was because they all knew already that it was the risen Jesus. Could it be that names were not attached to the Gospels because, like in this instance, the writers assumed that those receiving the Gospel would know or recognize who it was from?

Was John there or not?

Finally, let’s return to the Gospel of John. For those who question who wrote the Gospels, he’s a good candidate for having a Gospel attributed to him since he would have been known from his epistles as well as the Revelation. But, since they only attribute it to him, not believing it to be true, some people, such as Candida Moss, further claim that John was not an eyewitness (see above). This follows naturally from the assumption that the Gospel was written a century after the crucifixion, which would make it impossible to have been written by the apostle unless we grant that he lived an extremely long life.

Yet the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of John, relate details that only an eyewitness would know. These details go beyond the public discourses of Jesus. They include also the private details and also aspects of Jesus’ actions, intentions and inner motivations that only an eyewitness would be privy to. For example, John details exactly how Jesus indicated to the other disciples that it was Judas who was the betrayer. (John 13.21-27) Those particular details are not provided in any other Gospel. If he were not an eyewitness, where did he get those details? If the writer wasn’t John, where did the writer get the information, particularly if it was written a hundred years after the crucifixion?

Such detail requires an eyewitness to the event. When murder suspects know things about the crime that only the culprit could know, police consider that to be strong evidence that the person with such knowledge is the culprit. The same applies here. John has many detailed facts that only a witness to the event would have. He was obviously an eyewitness to such events, and thus clearly one of the original twelve disciples as indicated in the Gospels.

Assessment

The combined problems mentioned above appear insurmountable. If the goal of some second century writer was to have a document he wrote long after the fact be accepted and circulated and didn’t care about accurately representing who he was, it seems highly implausible that he would elect to go with unknown people like Mark and Luke. Neither one was an apostle, neither one was a personal witness to the entire ministry of Jesus. Due to the stigma of being a despised tax collector, Matthew would also have been a problematic choice. The only name that seems plausible is John, yet there is much evidence in the Gospel itself that it is the testimony of events personally witnessed as the Gospel itself testifies. (John 21.24).

So, one can doubt the authorship of the Gospels just as one can doubt that Jesus is the Son God. But, just as there is plenty of evidence for Jesus being the Son of God, there is plenty of evidence for the Gospels being written by the traditionally attributed authors. To claim otherwise is merely an exercise in selective evidence to support your predilection to disbelieve the Gospel accounts.

Duane Caldwell  |  October 31, 2025 | Printer Friendly Version
Follow @rational_faith_

Notes

1. On the Gospel writer’s names known from the time of circulation, New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie writes in his New Testament Introduction:

Matthew:
“The earliest description of this Gospel of which we have any evidence attributes it to Matthew. (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΑΙΟΝ). This is testified by strong tradition. It was indisputably acknowledged before the close of the second century and there is no positive evidence that the book ever circulated without this title. Indeed it may reasonably be claimed that the title was affixed at least as early as AD 125.” p. 33

Mark
“So strong is the early Christian testimony that Mark was the author of this Gospel that we need do little more than mention this attestation. Papias, Irenaeus, probably the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome all refer to Mark’s authorship of the Gospel. Moreover, all of them connect Mark with Peter in the production of the Gospel.” p. 69

Luke
Lucan authorship is derived from the consideration of much evidence – both internal to the Gospel and external. The conclusion after considering such evidence:
“There would appear to be far stronger grounds for retaining the tradition of Lucan authorship for both the Gospel and Acts than for rejecting it. This opinion is confirmed by the fact that advocates of Lucan authorship are not only in the majority, but are also drawn from widely differing schools of theological opinion,” p. 109

John
As with the Gospel of Luke, evidence both internal and external to the gospel is considered. The conclusion – the author is the apostle John.
“This, [the apostle John as the author] as has been seen, is the traditional view, which has much support for it in the internal evidence. Indeed, it may be said that there is no evidence which conclusively disproves it, in spite of much opposition to it. This view would, on the whole, seem to account for more facts than any other, even if it is not without its difficulties.”  p. 264
Donald Gutherie, New Testament Introduction (Third Edition), Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1970

Regarding the Gospel of John, Bible Commentator Merrill C. Tenney states;
“The earliest tradition of the church ascribes the fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee, one of the first of Jesus’ disciples, and one who was closest to him. Irenaeus bishop of Lyons (fl.c. 180) stated plainly that ‘John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia’ (Against Heresies 3.1). Irenaeus’s testimony has been corroborated by other writers.”
Merrill C. Tenney, “The Gospel of John” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor; Vol 9 (John – Acts), Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, p. 5
Back

2. Robert R. Cargill, ref. from Bible Secrets Revealed Episode “Lost In Translation”, History documentary, Season 1 Episode 1,  2013
Back

3. Bart Ehrman, ref from Bible Secrets Revealed Episode “Lost In Translation”
Back

4. According to Ehrman:
“The Gospels are anonymous writings, only later attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Since they do not claim to be written by these figures, strictly speaking, they are not forgeries.”
Bart Ehrman, Forged (2011, p.23) referenced from ChatGPT,
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69019929c81481918e97a7a7346310ed 10/28/2025
Prompt: “Does Bart Ehrman ever call the canonical gospels pseudepigrapha?”
Back

5. Candida Moss, ref from Bible Secrets Revealed Episode “Lost In Translation”
Back

6. Among those considering considering the gospels “functional pseudepigrapha” are Helmut Koester and John Dominic Crossan, with Rudolf Bultmann implying that they are or function that way.
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6901b9a2480c81919ba91bb4733bd4f4 10/29/2025
ChatGPT prompt: Do any Bible scholars consider the 4 canonical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John pseudepigrapha?
Back

7. Cargill, ref. from Bible Secrets Revealed Episode “Lost In Translation”
Back

8. Burdick argues that six factors support an early date for the epistle of James:
“Several considerations make it probable that James wrote between A.D. 45 and 50.”
Donald W. Burkdick, “James” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor; Vol 12 (Hebrews – Revelation), 1981, p. 162
Back

9. Supporting (or suggesting as an option) that the evidence that John wrote his Gospel early, but it was published much later includes Merrill C. Tenney in this Gospel of John Commentary p.9 , Donald Gutherie in his New Testament Introduction. pp. 285-287. Supporting an early date (before AD 70) without separating writing and publication: Leon Morris in his commentary on John in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 32-35;  and the NIV Study Bible, p. 1591
Back

10. For a number of good reasons, most scholars who believe the epistle is appropriately named, believe the James named in the epistle (James 1.1) is the half-brother of the Lord, not one of the apostles named James.
Back

11. For details on scholars supporting similarities see:
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69028867332c8191a7e0420cdd6d8459 10/29/25
ChatGPT prompt: Have any scholars suggested the Gospels – Matthew Mark Luke and John followed some of the traditions of the Greek travel journeys like the Iliad and the Odyssey?
Back

12. Homer’s name as author does not appear in the Iliad or Odyssey
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_690284ed347c8191bc255fbc5304a666 10/29/25
ChatGPT prompt: Did the travel journeys of the Greeks like the Illiad and the Odyssey include the name of the author in the body of text, or just in the heading or title?
Back 

Image
Bibles: Publisher, Version, Book
IBS – International Bible Society, NYBS – New York Bible Society, UBS – United Bible Society, NT – New Testament

Illustration: Duane Caldwell © 2025