When Did the Gospels Get Their Names? In this series of posts on the authors’ names associated with the New Testament Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – we have so far seen that the texts themselves are completely anonymous. The authors of two of these works (Luke and John) do speak in the first person in a couple of instances, but they do not say who they are.
By the end of the second century, roughly a century after the books were written, they were being called by the names that are familiar to us today. So naturally one might wonder, when were they given these ascriptions?
When Did the Gospels Get Their Names: Evidence
Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John.
Here are some factors to consider. First, the titles almost certainly cannot be what the authors themselves called their works. It is widely thought among critical scholars that Mark did give a kind of descriptive title to his work, in what is now the first verse: “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is probably not simply an introduction to what is to follow. It may well be Mark’s own title. Notice that his own name (whatever it was) is left out of it.
Gospels of Christ – The other three Gospels…
The other three Gospels do not have titles: they just begin. But it is clear that they were not originally called such things as “The Gospel according to Luke” or the “Gospel according to John,” as is found in our later manuscripts. The reason should be obvious. No one (in either antiquity or today) would give a title to indicate whom it is “according to.” (When I wrote my book Misquoting Jesus I called it just that; I didn’t entitle it “Misquoting Jesus According to Bart Ehrman) If one wanted to entitle a Gospel, they would do what Mark did, and call it something like “The Life of Jesus” or “The Account of Jesus’ Words and Deeds” or “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” or the like.
If someone indicates, in a title, whom the Gospel is “according to,” it is someone else telling you whose version of the Gospel it is. That must mean that the Gospels were not given their titles until it was widely known that there were several versions floating around and that it was important to differentiate among them. So when was that?
The Name of the Gospels By the End of the First Century
There are solid reasons for thinking that Gospels were in circulation by the end of the first century. But there are also solid reasons for thinking that at that point, at least, the Gospels had not been given their now current names. Luke indicates that “many others” had written accounts of Jesus’ life, and that he, unlike them, was going to give an “orderly account.” So Gospels were known to him. He certainly had Mark and Q at his disposal, and probably other accounts. So too Matthew. And John may well have known of the other three, and yet others. But we have no record of anyone calling these books by their later names.
The Gospels of the New Testament appear to be quoted in early second century authors such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. But they are not called by their names in any of these writings. In fact, in any of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers – ten proto-orthodox writers, most of them from the first half of the second century. Of greater significance – quite real significance – is evidence from the middle of the second century.
When Did the Gospels Get Their Names – Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr wrote several extensive works that still survive. Two apologies (reasoned defenses of the Christian faith) and a book called the “Dialogue with Trypho” (an extended controversy with a Jewish thinker about the superiority of the Christian faith to Judaism).
Justin is an important figure in the history of Christianity. He was one of the first intellectuals in the church, one who was trained in philosophy before converting to Christianity from paganism. His books were written around 150-160 CE in Rome, where he had moved to set up a kind of Christian school. Eventually because of his public Christian stance, he was arrested and martyred – hence his sobriquet, Justin “Martyr.”
In his writings Justin quotes the Gospels that later were to be considered part of the New Testament on numerous occasions. It is quite clear that he knows (intimately) Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is debated whether he knows John. He does have two explicit quotations from John 3 (from the passage about “being born again”) but some scholars think that’s not enough to show that he knows John – just that he is familiar with a tradition that had earlier also found its way into John. My own view is that he probably knew John.
Name of the Gospels – Call Them by Name
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE!!!
I could use some help with this. It has to do with Justin having access to Luke. In Trypho:78 his infancy account says Jesus was born in a ‘Cave’. This is not consistent with either Matthew or Luke. The only source I can find this account is the Gospel of James. In Dialog:100 Justin quotes Luke 1:35. However, that passage also appears in James 1:38. All mentions of Just to the infancy story seem to be consistent with James. What are your thoughts on him having access to James vs Luke?
My sense is that there were oral traditions floating around that both Justin and Proto-Gospel of James had access to, and that some authors like Justin could pick up information both from written sources and orally. It’d be difficult to give a secure date for the Proto-Gospel prior to Justin.
Of course, Matthew 1:1 may be a title for that Gospel, depending on whether it is introducing all 28 chapters, just the first two chapters, or just the first 17 verses.
Yup, could be — although the “genealogy” mentioned there is really only the first 17 verses.
When are the earliest gospels (fragmentary, whole but discrete or gathered into codices) that have the now familiar apostolic attributions dated to?
Around 200 CE.
If you were appointed by Jesus to be a witness of Him, why, when given the chance to write down your testimony of Jesus, would you fail to clearly identify yourself as one of his disciples, by name?! What do conservative scholars say to that? Also, I just listened to one of your Great Courses lessons on Papias. Fascinating how the early church leaders carefully selected material to support their beliefs.
Fischian and how would you establish that either of the Gospel writers were “appointed by Jesus to be witnesses of him”?
A little off topic, but I am just curious about something. Is there anything about the synoptic gospels that you can think of that would rule out the possibility that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written by the same person, with Mark being a first draft and Matthew and Luke being later improvements?
Yes, the writing style is different between the three. The themes are different. The emphases are different. The theological views are different. So there’s really nothing to make one think the same person wrote all three.
Really enjoying these posts.
Other than Luke, is there any indication that the gospel writers were familiar with or gave any credence to Paul. What I’m especially curious about is why the order of appearances of the risen Christ, according to the Gospels differs from Paul’s account, i.e. “first to Peter, then the twelve….”. If Paul’s writing were available and authoritative, as I assumed they were by the time the gospels were written, why did all the Gospel writers give deference to the tradition of the women at the tomb over Paul’s account?
There’s no explicit link to Paul, but some think that Mark’s Gospel has a Pauline theology behind it. And Matthew is in some ways responding *against* Paul….
Why do you think the 1 Cor 15 tradition omits the women at the tomb, when it’s found in each gospel?
My guess is that Paul didn’t know that tradition.
Just out of curiosity:
Is there any evidence (say in the Fathers or in any manuscripts) that any of the four canonical Gospels were *ever* associated with any other names?
Or to ask this another way, is it the case that the Gospel we know as “Matthew” –*if* it was given a name– was *only* ever attribute to Matthew (or “Mark” only to Mark, “Luke” only to Luke, etc)?
No, so far as we know, they were never called anything else, once they were called by these names.
Simply fascinating as well as intriguing. Onward!
Are you still monitoring comments on this post? I have a few questions based on (what else) an online debate I’m having.
I made what I thought was the non-controversial observation that you (Bart Ehrman) do not believe Luke wrote Luke, and that the scholarly consensus supports you in this conclusion.
Naturally, my debate opponent responded with the names of scholars who disagree and believe Luke wrote Luke. Lo and behold, every last one he cited was a Christian, except for one — YOU. He thought you agreed with him. I had to set him straight on that.
In any event, what’s the state of the consensus regarding the authorship of Luke?
Conservative Christians almost entirely think Luke, Paul’s traveling companion, wrote Luke/Acts. Other scholars, not so much. I personally don’t think so at all, and have given the arguments in my book Forgery and Counterforgery
Appreciate the reply. If it’s not too much trouble, can you be a little more detailed? Are there non-Christians who argue Luke wrote Luke? (I know there are Christians who concede he probably didn’t).
A few influential names on either side would be helpful. I’m not demanding an answer, but if you have a few minutes, I’d appreciate it. If not, peace and Happy Thanksgiving!
My guess is that a lot of people — whether Christian or non-Christian — assume that Paul’s companion Luke wrote Luke-Acts. I give extensive reasons for showing that that’s probably not right in my book Forgery and Counterforgery. The basic line is that every time he mentions something Paul said or did that can be checked against what Paul himself says there are discrepancies. *Maybe* “Luke” just wasn’t paying attention, but it’s also possible (probable in my books) that the book was not written by a companion of Paul.
Rolmeda
You might simply as them to show that Luke was written by Luke. My suspicion is there’s a bit of looking at the attribution and the finding a Luke among the Christian community and saying AHA this Luke is the author of gLuke
Hi:
thanks for the post! Just for clarity sake; do we have any of the earlier manuscripts that are without the “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John” attributions?
thanks so much for your work!
Keith
No, we don’t. But the first manuscripts we have with any titles at all are mid-fourth century.
What is the name of the “oldest manuscript” that has the “Names of the Gospels” and the estimated date that the manuscript was written?….. Thank you
The two oldest manuscripts with Gospels and titles in them are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. They both date to the middle of the fourth century CE
Hi Bart! You mentioned in one of your talks a thesis that Justin is actually refering to the Gospel of Peter and you said that there is a book or aritcle by some professor in Germany (in german languauge) about that. Could you please cite author and the title. I can read and write in german so I would really like to see his arguments about that! Thanks.
Once again, grettings from Croatia!
Marko
Peter Pilhofer, “Justin und das Petrusevangelium,” Zeitschrift fuer neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 81 (1990) 60-78.
Thanks! I’ve read it but it seems to me that Pilhofer is taking his argument too far. The most probable explanation is that Justin is reffering to the memoirs of (or about) Jesus. But anyways, thanks for providing the title!
Dear Bart, I can’t find anything about autorship of the Gospel of Mark? I think that you stated that author of the Gospel of Mark didn’t know jewish customs and therefore couldn’t be our Mark (mentioned in Pauls epistle to Philemon and Acts). Could you cite few examples? Where Mark doesn’t understand jewish customs? Thanks!
A key passage is Mark 7:3, where Mark indicates that “all the Jews” have a custom of washing their hands before eating. He is talking about “the Jews” as a different group from his own, but more important, what he says about them is actually flat out wrong (this was not a custom followed by all, or even most, Jews), and he doesn’t seem to know it.
Dr. Ehrman, forgive my ignorance. How much writing from those ten Apostolic Fathers do we have? How many books or pages, just to perhaps get an idea? If we don’t have much text from these Fathers, in my mind it would diminish the significance of the fact that they do not name the gospels by their traditional names.
My Greek-English edition of them is in two volumes (small size); I looked at a one-volume edition that wsa just over 700 pages (small pages), and since half of them are the English transslation, the originals would be half that, minus the editors introductions and so on, so, I don’t know, maybe 300 pages of original language text or so? Just a guess. Some of them explicitly quote early writings about Jesus in ways that make it look like they know Matthew and Luke, in writing. But they don’t name them (saying “as the Lord said” etc.). So too more interesting Justin in 150, often quotes “the memoirs of the Apostles” but he doesn’t name a single one of them. Intriguing. 30 years later, Irenaeus does name them. Have you read my discussion of all this in Forged?
Very interesting. No, I jumped right into Forgery and Counterforgery instead, which (perhaps I’m misremembering) doesn’t treat this topic. Does Forged give more detail about gospel authorship?
A bit. Both books are about pseudonymous instead of anonymous writings in early Xty. But yes, I devote some pages to the issue.
Cool. Well I’m gonna go buy your editions of the Fathers and take a gander. Thanks!
Dear Bart, Were the Gospels ever attributed to any specific indiciduals other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? (So not including Justin Martyr’s “Memoirs of the Apostles”, as that’s not a specific attribution). If not, does this tell us anything interesting? If these were false attributions (as I believe they were), why were alternative attributions not suggested, and why did these particular ones catch on so universally?
No they weren’t. Yes it does. But not that they really *were* written by those people. I develop a theory about it in my book Forged. I think there was a manuscript produced probably in Rome that named the four, probably sometime in the 150s or 160s, that it was circulated among church leaders, and everyone bought into it. If the tradition were *earlier* than that the earlier evidence (which doesn’t name any of them) would be very hard to explain.
Do we know whether the names were also adopted by those outside the proto-Orthodox community? In particular, did communities that were antithetical to the Roman church adopt the names? If so, would your argument still hold?
Yes, probably. and no, it would have no effect. These groups didn’t start even to emerge until the Gospels had long been in ciruulation. their later views have no bearing on what the books were originally called.
I wonder, is there anything inherent in or specific to each of the four NT gospels that would have reasonably (or unreasonably) inspired any potential “namer” to name each of them accordingly, i.e. this one seems like Matthew, this one Mark, this one looks like it was written by Luke, and this one… John.
Also, it appears we do not have gospel manuscripts dated prior to named gospel manuscripts, whether not named or named something else. It seems there should always be an earliest manuscript of whatever writing, assuming there to be some even earlier or theoretical “first” which is unavailable. If all the manuscripts we do have, from the earliest manuscript forward, contain a certain feature, is there sufficient reason to adopt a “more likely than not” position that the certain feature in question is not “original” (in so far as that word can be used)? Is the apparent fact that earlier writings referencing the text (but not some named title) of the various gospels sufficient weight on which to base a “more likely than not” position that at the time Justin referenced the text, the gospels were not associated with the present names? I’m likely missing additional weight.
Yes, I’ve talked about this on the blog. Just search for names of the Gospels or authors of the Gospels, and you’ll find the posts. (I explain why each one was assigned to the person it was).
Dear Bart,
What do you think about M. Hengel thesis who claims that the gospels had to be named in some way (so that they could be distinguished)? Is it really possible that the community of Christians (let’s say: 110AD in Antioch) didn’t distinguish in any way at all between two, three or four gospels? I know the evidence we have (or don’t have): no citation of authors until the late 2nd century. However, does this fact prove that the Gospels circulated anonymously or does this fact only point to a lack of sources from that time period? How can we (as historians) decide between that two?
Thank’s for your help and I wish you and your family all the best!
Kind regards,
Marko
I think that is indeed why the Gospels ended up taking names at the end of the second century. You will notice, though, that he has no evidence that there was more than one Gospel available in Antioch in 110. The first time anyone names the four Gospels is Ireaneus in 185 CE. Notice:the names are not titles per se. Matthew, for example, is not given the title “Matthew”; the title is actually “According to Matthew” (that’s the full title). That means a scribe is telling you which version this one is. That became necessary when several were in circulation in the same location, but even then there’s no evidence it happened early (e.g., Justin quotes all three Synoptics but doesn’t name any of them, in 150 CE)
If the gospels were attributed to the authors later, what is your explanation to why there were not arguments or debate over their authorship?
It’s a long story, but the short answer is that I think everyone simply thought of them as anonymous and had no reason to assign them to one author or another, but that when an influential person in Rome or a scribe who produced a copy of hte four books assigned a name to them it simply caught on: there was no real reason to think that anyone else wrote them.
Dear Bart,
I don’t know if you have ever encountered the following argument from apologists, but I would be grateful to hear your thoughts:
It is absolutely true that Justin doesn’t mention the names of the gospels. But he had a pupil named Tatian who wrote the Diatessaron where he combined all the textual material he found in the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—into a single coherent narrative of Jesus’s life and death. If he has done that (being the pupil of Justin), doesn’t that mean that Justin probably knew these gospels by their traditional names?
Hope you can help me.
Kind regards
Marko
Tatian never mentions the names of the Gospel authors in any of his surviving writings, and they were not named in the Diatessaron. He was taking their texts and weaving together so that they were no long individual writings (with titles or names attahced)
Dr. Ehrman,
You said that “Justin does not say that he thinks that the apostles themselves wrote the books.” However, isn’t that exactly what he claims when he says the following?
“For the apostles, in the memoirs *composed* by them, which are called Gospels” (Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist).
How do you explain Justin saying that the apostles “composed” the Gospels if you believe he isn’t attributing authorship to the apostles? What else would he be doing when using the word composed?
Yikes! Did I put it that way??? (It was 9-10 years ago I should think.) I *meant* that he doesn’t say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (that is, THOSE apostles) wrote the books. He certainly thinks they were the “memoirs of the apostles”
Dr. Ehrman,
Do we have evidence of authors in other Greco-Roman bios identifying themselves in the composition? Or was it typical for authors of Greco-Roman bios to remain anonymous?
Unfortunately we don’t have the original manuscripts of any of the bios to see what the authors did with their names, if anything.