Who Wrote the Gospels?

Summary

The script debates the authorship of the four Gospels, traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It challenges the modern scholarly consensus that the Gospels were originally anonymous, suggesting that they were likely written by the named individuals. The argument is supported by the lack of alternative authorship claims, unanimous attestation across early church writings, and the implausibility of later forgeries given the titles' historical and cultural context.

Takeaways

• ?\ud83c? The four Gospels in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but some argue that they were originally anonymous and the names were added later for authority.
• ?\ud83c? There's a scholarly consensus that the Gospels were not written by the individuals they're named after, challenging the traditional view with historical-critical analysis.
• ?\ud83c? Ancient works, including the Gospels, were often internally anonymous, with authorship indicated externally through titles or other means, which was a standard practice.
• ?\ud83c? The lack of internal claims of authorship in the Gospels does not necessarily imply they circulated anonymously; they could have been identified by external titles or tags.
• ?\ud83c? Scholars like Simon Gathercole argue that the anonymity of ancient biographies was common and that the Gospels likely had titles attributing them to their respective authors from the outset.
• ?\ud83c? The early Church valued reliable sources, and it's improbable that they would have accepted anonymous biographies of Christ without knowing their origin from reliable sources like disciples or elders.
• ?\ud83c? There is unanimous agreement among early Church writings that the Gospels came from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with no dissenting voices suggesting other authors.
• ?\ud83c? The titles of the Gospels show remarkable consistency across manuscripts, suggesting that they were added early and not as a later addition, which supports the idea that the titles were original.
• ?\ud83c? The names attached to the Gospels are unlikely choices for forgers, considering the social status and roles of the individuals named, which further supports the traditional authorship.
• ?\ud83c? The evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is stronger than for many other ancient works, with earlier and more consistent attestation, challenging the notion that the Gospels were originally anonymous.

Q & A

为什么有观点认为最初的福音书是匿名的？

一些学者认为，最初的福音书是匿名的，因为这些文献在其内部没有提及作者的名字，无论是在序言还是正文中。这种观点认为，这些名字是在二世纪时为了增加其权威性而后来添加的[^3^]。

传统上，哪四位作者被认为是四福音书的作者？

传统上，四福音书被认为是由耶稣的门徒马太和约翰以及他们的追随者马可和路加所写[^3^]。

为什么有人认为马可福音可能是彼得口述的？

根据早期教会传统，马可福音是由使徒彼得的追随者马可所写，他记录了彼得关于耶稣生活的教导。因此，有一种观点认为，马可能是彼得口述的[^3^]。

路加福音的序言提到了谁，这与福音书的匿名性有何关联？

路加福音的序言提到了提阿非罗，这表明路加福音是送给一个特定的人的。这很难想象路加福音在没有提阿非罗知道谁写的情况下就被送出，这支持了路加福音并非匿名的观点[^3^]。

早期教会父亲帕皮亚斯对于福音书作者身份有何看法？

早期教会父亲帕皮亚斯认为他不相信任何不能追溯到耶稣的门徒或已知长老的可靠来源的传统，这表明早期教会不太可能接受关于基督的匿名传记[^3^]。

为什么有学者认为福音书的标题在其最初写作时就存在？

一些学者认为，因为古代作品通常在其外部（如标题、目录或卷轴背面的标签）标识作者，所以福音书很可能在其最初写作时就带有归属于各自作者的标题[^3^]。

为什么说福音书的匿名性并不奇怪？

根据Simon Gathercole的说法，考虑到文化背景，我们应该预期福音书是内部匿名的，而且这种匿名性并不是福音书独有的特征。许多古代作品也是内部匿名的，如色诺芬、约瑟夫斯和普鲁塔克的作品[^3^]。

早期教会对于福音书作者的共识是什么？

早期教会的共识是，四福音书的作者是马太、马可、路加和约翰。这种共识来自不同的地区和不同的作者，他们一致认为这四部福音书是由这四位作者所写[^3^]。

为什么说将福音书归因为马太、马可、路加和约翰不太可能是后来的伪造者所为？

因为马太被认为是一个税吏，这是一个在犹太人中被鄙视的职业，而马可和路加只是门徒的追随者，并不是耶稣的直接门徒。选择这些人作为福音书的作者，对于后来的伪造者来说没有意义[^3^]。

为什么说福音书的作者身份对于理解其内容并不重要？

即使关于福音书作者身份的问题很复杂，但重要的是这些文献所包含的真理。无论是谁实际写下或编辑了这些信息，这些福音书都是受启示的作品[^3^]。

Outlines

00:00

📜 The Debate on Gospel Authorship

This paragraph discusses the historical debate over the authorship of the four Gospels. Traditionally, they are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but some argue they were originally anonymous, with names added later for authority. The paragraph outlines the traditional view that two Gospels were written by disciples (Matthew and John) and the other two by followers of disciples (Mark and Luke). However, modern consensus among New Testament historians is that there's no solid evidence that the Gospels were written by the individuals they are named after. Scholars like Bart Ehrman and David Carr argue for the anonymity of the Gospels, suggesting that names were ascribed later when the Gospels were published as a collection in the second century. Dale Martin also supports this view, stating that the Gospels were likely published without names initially. However, recent scholarship, as represented by Simon Gathercole, challenges this consensus, arguing that the Gospels' titles were probably part of the original writings, and they were always understood to be from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

05:01

📚 External Identification of Ancient Authors

The second paragraph explores how ancient works, including the Gospels, were often internally anonymous but externally identified through titles, subscriptions, or other markers outside the main text. It discusses various ways authors could be identified outside their works, such as in a title above the text or on a scroll's back. The paragraph refutes the idea that the Gospels were not attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until the second century. It argues that the Gospels would have needed external titles for identification as they were added to church libraries and circulated. The authorship would have been known to the first readers, as seen in the prologue of Luke's Gospel, which was addressed to Theophilus. Early church fathers like Papias emphasized the importance of reliable sources, suggesting that the Gospels would not have been accepted without known authors. The paragraph also highlights the unanimous agreement among early church writings that attribute the Gospels to the traditional authors.

10:02

🔍 Unanimous Consent on Gospel Authorship

This paragraph emphasizes the unanimous consent across the early Christian writings that attribute the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It discusses how no other authors were ever suggested for the Gospels and how the traditions about them differ on minor details, indicating that the information did not all come from a single source. The paragraph also notes the remarkable similarity in the titles of the Gospels across manuscripts, suggesting that the titles were added early. It argues against the idea that the Gospels were anonymous by pointing out that the names attached to the Gospels are unlikely choices for forgers. For example, Matthew was a tax collector, a despised profession among Jews, and Mark and Luke were not direct disciples of Jesus. The paragraph also compares the Gospels' authorship to that of other ancient works, like the book of Hebrews, which was truly anonymous and sparked debate among Church Fathers about its authorship, unlike the Gospels.

15:03

🗣️ The Case for Traditional Gospel Authorship

The final paragraph summarizes the evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels. It points out that it was common for biographical works to be internally anonymous, with authors identified externally, such as through tags or titles. The paragraph argues that there was a practical need to identify the Gospels as they were added to Christian libraries, and there is no indication that they were ever considered anonymous. It highlights the unanimous attestation from multiple witnesses that the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The paragraph also notes that the names of the Gospel authors are unlikely to have been chosen by forgers and that the conversation about their authorship should have resembled the debate over the authorship of Hebrews if they were truly anonymous. It concludes by questioning why the Gospels are assumed to be anonymous when the evidence strongly favors that they were not, and it challenges skeptics to provide a better explanation for the unanimous and early attestation of the Gospel titles and their association with the traditional authors.

Keywords

💡Gospels

The Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament in the Christian Bible, traditionally believed to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In the video, the authorship and authenticity of these texts are discussed, questioning whether they were originally anonymous and later attributed to these individuals to add authority.

💡Anonymous

Anonymous refers to works that are not signed or identified with an author's name. The video explores the idea that the Gospels might have been originally anonymous, with authorship names added later. This concept is central to the debate over the authenticity and historical context of the Gospels.

💡Authorship

Authorship pertains to the act of being the originator of a written work. The video discusses the traditional authorship of the Gospels and challenges to this view, presenting arguments for and against the idea that the Gospels were written by the individuals to whom they are attributed.

💡New Testament historians

New Testament historians are scholars who study the origins and history of the Christian New Testament. The video references these historians' consensus that the Gospels were not originally attributed to their traditional authors, contrasting with other scholars who argue for the originality of the titles.

💡Canonical Gospels

The Canonical Gospels refer to the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) accepted as part of the Christian Bible. The video discusses the origin of these texts and whether the names associated with them were added later or were part of the original texts.

💡Internally Anonymous

Internally anonymous works do not mention their author within the text itself. The video uses this concept to argue that the Gospels, which do not name their authors in the text, were not necessarily anonymous in circulation, as was common practice in ancient literature.

💡External Title

An external title is a label or name given to a work that is separate from the text itself. The video suggests that the Gospels may have always had external titles attributing them to their respective authors, which would imply that they were not anonymous in their original circulation.

💡Early Church Fathers

Early Church Fathers were Christian theologians and bishops in the first few centuries AD. The video cites their unanimous agreement on the authorship of the Gospels, which supports the traditional view that the Gospels were not anonymous but attributed to specific individuals from the start.

💡Papias

Papias was an early Christian bishop who is quoted in the video as valuing traditions that could be traced back to reliable sources. His views are used to argue against the idea that the early church would have accepted anonymous biographies of Christ.

💡Manuscript

A manuscript is a handwritten copy of a text. The video discusses the survival of early copies of the Gospels that still bear titles attributing them to their traditional authors, suggesting that these titles were not added later but were part of the original texts.

💡Forgery

Forgery in the context of the video refers to the act of falsely attributing a work to an author other than the true one. The video argues against the idea that the Gospels were forgeries, suggesting that the names attached to them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are unlikely choices for forgers.

Highlights

The four Gospels are traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but some argue they were originally anonymous.

The claim that Gospels were anonymous until the second century to give them authority is questioned.

Christian tradition holds that two Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, and the other two by followers of the disciples.

Modern New Testament historians generally agree that the Gospels were not written by the men they are attributed to.

David Carr and Colleen Conway argue all four Gospels were originally anonymous.

Simon Gathercole's paper challenges the idea that the anonymity of the Gospels indicates they were not attributed to their traditional authors.

Ancient works were often internally anonymous, including biographies similar to the Gospels.

Gathercole notes that many ancient authors did not include their names within their works.

The absence of an author's name within a work does not mean it circulated without a known author.

Ancient works often identified authors externally, such as in titles or subscriptions.

It is plausible that the Gospels always came with titles attributing them to their respective authors.

The claim that Gospels were not attributed to their traditional authors until the second century is disputed.

Early church writings show unanimous agreement that the Gospels came from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

No dissenting voices attribute the Gospels to other authors, and no alternative authors are ever suggested.

The titles of the Gospels have remarkable similarity across manuscripts, suggesting they were added early.

The names attached to the Gospels are unlikely choices for forgers, suggesting authenticity.

The conversation about the Gospels' authorship should have resembled the debate on the authorship of the book of Hebrews if they were anonymous.

The evidence strongly favors that the Gospels were never anonymous, contrary to some assumptions.

We have far more attestation for the Gospels' authorship than other ancient works whose authorship is not questioned.

The traditional authorship of the Gospels is supported by a wealth of evidence and unanimous early attestation.

Transcripts

you know the four gospels are attributed

to Matthew Mark Luke and John but many

argue the gospels were originally

Anonymous and the names were only added

later to give them more Authority

but is this accurate in the first

century were the gospels entirely

Anonymous and only when they were

criticized did second century Christians

add names to give them more Authority

or are there good reasons to think the

gospels really did come from Matthew

Mark Luke and John

Christian tradition teaches at two of

the gospels were written by Disciples of

Jesus Matthew and John

the other two are written by followers

of the disciples Mark was a follower in

The Interpreter of Peter and Luke was a

traveling companion of Paul

but according to the consensus of New

Testament historians today there is no

reason to think the gospels were written

by the men they are attributed to

Bart ehrmann says there were some books

such as the gospels that had been

written anonymously only later to be

ascribed to certain authors who probably

did not write them Apostles and Friends

of the Apostles

David Carr and Colleen Conway say all

four of the canonical gospels were

originally Anonymous it was only in the

second century CE when the four gospels

were published as a collection that the

superscriptions were added to the

gospels attributing authorship to

Matthew Mark Luke and John respectively

Dale Martin says we believe that all

four gospels were originally published

anonymously and the names they now bear

were given to the four books later in

order to link the books to Disciples of

Jesus her close Disciples of Disciples

of Jesus

however within the past few decades many

scholars have been pushing back against

this consensus in arguing the titles of

the gospels were most likely included

when the gospels were originally written

and they were always understood as

having come from Matthew Mark Luke and

John

one of the reasons the traditional

authorship of the gospels is denied is

because none of them internally mention

an author either in the preface or main

body

thus the gospels are by definition

internally anonymous

but that doesn't mean they ever

circulated without names attached to

them

in 2019 Simon gathercool wrote an

important paper where he points out a

lack of claim of authorship internally

is entirely irrelevant to the question

of the gospel's anonymity

the reason being is many ancient Works

were also internally anonymous xenophon

didn't include his name her pseudonym

within the text of the anabasas Josephus

left his name out of antiquity of the

Jews

we don't see any Preparatory

self-references in the works of polybius

diodorus horarian Latin authors like

Salas Livy and tacitus did not mention

themselves internally in their works

Mike Lacona adds that Julius Caesar did

not identify himself as the author of

his commentaries on the Civil War and he

writes entirely in third person

as the author of John's gospel may have

done

in fact elmar Herkimer noted that this

practice of an author leaving their name

out of the body of their work was the

standard Norm

if we look specifically at the genre of

ancient Greco-Roman biographies of which

the gospels fit nicely with we can see

it was common to write biographies

internally anonymous

gather coal notes Philo admitted his

name from his biographical works on

Abraham Joseph and Moses

Plutarch makes no mention of his name in

parallel lives

porphery does not State he is the author

of any of his surviving works

neither does philistratus nepas or

tacitus when he wrote a biography of his

father-in-law

Lucian does not mentioned he is the

author of his Works Alexander the false

prophet the toxaris and the biography of

deminax

he only mentions his name at the end of

one of his works the passing of

peregrinus where it reads Lucian to

Kronos with best wishes

gather Cole notes the only other example

he can find or an author's name is

mentioned is the fictional one of Alias

which is in a late work called the

Astoria Augusta

and because it is fictional it likely

wasn't written by the author it is

attributed to

additionally love day Alexander notes

the prologues of ancient technical

handbooks often lack the author's name

she argues Luke's prologue matches a

standard medical or technical prologue

from that time

and so it's not strange that Luke

doesn't mention himself either

thus given this survey gathercole says

the absence of the evangelist's name

should excite no comment at all such an

absence is not remotely a curious

feature

in other words given the cultural

context we should expect the gospels to

be internally anonymous

and so the argument the gospels do not

eternally identify the authors is that

actually evidence they were known as

Anonymous works

gather Cole goes on to say the absence

of a name within the body of a Nation

work is entirely understandable because

of all the other ways in which the

author might be identified there were of

course numerous ways of indicating an

author's name in or on a roll or codex

outside of the work itself

ancient Works would often identify the

author in an external fashion like in a

title or subscription above the main

body or in a table of contents a running

header an end title on a title page

signed by the author on the back of the

scroll or with the name tag attached to

the scroll

some of these methods are unlikely

candidates for how the authors or the

gospels were identified but the point is

the standard practice appears to have

been to introduce the author apart from

the main body

it's plausible the gospels always came

with titles attributing them to their

respective authors

Simon Swain said it is perfectly normal

for literary Works to begin without a

reference to their author the author's

name should already be known to the

reader or hearer from the usual devices

but what are the claim that the four

gospels were not attributed to Matthew

Mark Luke and John until the second

century

well there are many reasons I think

their titles were actually original

first the gospels would have needed to

be identified when copies were added to

private Library collections of the

various churches

so it is likely they came with some form

of external title to identify them

just as it was the case with other

ancient works

second it is unlikely the gospels would

have circulated without names attached

to them

for example the prologue of Luke's

gospel indicates it was sent to someone

named Theophilus

it is inconceivable the gospel would

have been sent to him without Theophilus

knowing who wrote and sent him a copy of

a gospel

it is unlikely he would have just

received some Anonymous texts and

considered it authoritative without

knowing it came from someone like Luke

as Richard bockham said the author's

name would have featured in an original

title but in any case would have been

known to the delicate in other first

readers because the author would have

presented the book to the dedicated

we know in the first century Paul's

letters were circulating between

different churches and whoever was

delivering the letters would have been

able to verify the letter came from Paul

likewise as gospels were being copied

and circulated the various churches

would have requested information on

where the gospel came from

it is unlikely they just would have

accepted any old writing without

believing it came from a reliable source

the early church father papias said he

didn't give stock to any tradition that

could not be traced back to a reliable

source like a disciple of Jesus or a

known Elder

so it is unlikely the early church would

have accepted Anonymous biographies

about Christ without knowing they came

from reliable sources

third when we study the early church

writings we can see there is unanimous

agreement among a multitude of witnesses

all agree the gospels came from Matthew

Mark Luke and John there are none the

dissent and attribute them to other

authors

even early copies of the gospels that

have survived that still have a title

attribute them to their respected

authors

no gospel manuscript has ever been found

that bears a different name

p66 from the second century notes John

is the author of The Gospel attributed

to him P4 which dates to the second or

third Century notes Matthew is the

author of The Gospel attributed to him

in the second century Clement of

Alexandria lists four gospel authors

throughout his Works Matthew Mark Luke

and John

the letter of Paulie crates of Ephesus

to Victor of Rome we see him identify

who the Beloved disciple is

the Gospel of John states its testimony

came from the Beloved disciple of Jesus

in polycrates identifies this disciple

as John

the meritorian fragment is missing its

opening but identifies Luke and John as

gospel authors irenaeus tells us the

four gospel authors her Matthew Mark

Luke and John

an indisputable testimony to John's

authorship of the fourth gospel comes

from Theophilus of Antioch

hagasipus seems to also suggest that

John was a gospel author

paulinaris refers to Matthew 26 17-19

and suggests the author of it was the

disciple Matthew the acts of John seems

to identify the Beloved disciple as John

heraclian says John 1 18 was spoken by

the disciple John

in a fragment we have from the early

Church Father papias we see he says that

Matthew and Mark were gospel authors and

gather Cole knows his information likely

came from John the Elder who was another

disciple of Jesus

additionally we have other texts that

point to the four traditional gospel

authors in the acts of Peter and the

twelve from the nag hamadi collection we

see a scene played out that is

strikingly similar to what we read in

John 13.

but instead of the conversation being

between Peter and the Beloved disciple

it is between Peter and John

this implies the Beloved disciple The

Authority behind the Gospel of John was

in fact a disciple named John

as gather Cole says seeing John as the

one beside Jesus the acts of Peter and

the Twelve Apostles thereby sees John as

the Beloved disciple and therefore the

author of The Gospel

in the Gospel of Thomas we get a hint

that Matthew may have been understood to

be a gospel author as he singled out

among the twelve to be an authority

figure on who Jesus was alongside Peter

when we survey the early data we see

unanimous consent that the four gospel

authors her Matthew Mark Luke and John

no one ever claims another author for

the four canonical gospels and no one

ever suggests the gospels were

understood as anonymous

even Justin Martyr suggests the gospels

were known to be attributed to

evangelists not that they were Anonymous

works

moreover it is important to note that

this unanimous attestation comes from

across the whole Roman world not simply

one region

multiple authors from different regions

all agree the four gospel authors are

Matthew Mark Luke and John

but perhaps a skeptic could argue they

all got their information from the same

Source before it's spread out

even if this was true given that we have

cited many second century sources the

original point of the tradition must

have been early for it to have become

such a widespread tradition by the

second century

meaning it likely originated in the

first century when the gospels were

being composed

but also when we study the traditions we

see variation irenaeus and later Church

fathers suggest the order of the gospels

were written in was Matthew first

followed by Mark then Luke and then John

but Clement of Alexandria believed

Matthew and Luke were written first then

Mark and then John

so it appears they had different

Traditions regarding the order the

gospels were written in

which shows us their information was not

all coming from the same source and

despite this we still have unanimous

agreement on who the gospel authors were

James D G Dunn also notes the titles of

the gospels have remarkable similarity

across manuscripts which suggests the

titles were added early before they

spread around in other churches could

add their own differing labels

the gospels were not known by a variety

of titles such an outcome was likely if

the titles depended on recipients rather

than the author each recipient of an

anonymous writing was likely to choose

an identifying label most convenient to

him the fact then that the gospels are

almost universally known by the Fuller

title The Gospel According to or simply

according to strongly suggests that the

title was given to each gospel as soon

as they began to be circulated to be

more widely known and used beyond their

places of origin

as noted the gospels would need to be

identified when copies were added to

private Library collections of various

churches

if they were entirely Anonymous various

churches would have found different ways

to label them which would have

inadvertently created different

traditions on who wrote them

but has done notes this is not what we

see we see the basic title or the later

abbreviated title

so it appears the titles of the gospels

that attributed them to their respective

authors were most likely original not

added at later points

this makes sense with the external data

that we discussed but also we should

note it seems that the names attached to

the gospels would be unlikely pics of

later forgers

Matthew is a gospel that is for

evangelizing the Jewish people but it

was attributed to a tax collector which

was a despised profession among the Jews

it is also unlikely that the gospel was

attributed to him on the basis of the

references to him in verse 9 9 and 10 3.

given how much of a minor role he plays

throughout his gospel

Mark and Luke were only followers of the

disciples not direct Disciples of Jesus

it would make no sense to attribute

gospels to men who were never close with

Jesus

why not attribute the gospel of Mark to

Peter which tradition says was Mark's

main source

why would you pick two people as gospel

authors who were not direct Disciples of

Jesus

only the last gospels attributed to a

close disciple of Jesus

given this there's no reason to think

forgers from the second century would

pick Mark her Lucas gospel authors or a

tax collector as the author of The

Gospel for the Jewish people

finally it has been noted by Scholars

Like Richard bockham if the gospels were

truly Anonymous early on we should

expect Church Father commentary on their

authorship to resemble the talk on the

book of Hebrews

Hebrews is truly an anonymous work and

instead of the church picking an author

to attribute it to they debated on who

wrote it and suggested different authors

p46 implies Paul was the author

tertullian attributed it to Barnabas

eusebius wrote that origin said Paul was

the author others attributed it to

Clement of Rome or Luke as gather Cole

says this sort of diversity is exactly

what we do not find in references to the

authorship of the Gospels

instead we have unanimous agreement not

Church fathers trying to figure out who

wrote Anonymous biographies

so when we survey the data there is no

reason to deny the traditional

authorship of the Gospels

it was a common practice in biographical

Works to be internally Anonymous most

Works identified authors externally like

with a tag or in the title

there was a practical need to identify

the gospels as they spread out and were

added to Christian libraries

we have no indication the gospels were

ever thought of as Anonymous and we have

unanimous attestation from multiple

Witnesses the authors were Matthew Mark

Luke and John

no other authors were ever suggested for

the four gospels and the Traditions

about them differ on Minor Details

indicating this did not all stem from

one source that fooled them all

Additionally the name's Matthew Mark and

Luke are unlikely titles forgers would

have selected and if the gospels were

actually Anonymous the conversation

about their authorship should have

resembled the talk about who authored

Hebrews

at the end of the day what reason do we

have to deny the traditional authorship

of the Gospels

additionally we have far more

attestation for their authorship than

other ancient works as Mike Lacona says

the best source of testing plutarch's

authorship is the lampreys catalog

written more than a century in perhaps

more than two centuries after plutarch's

death

additionally it is falsely attributed to

plutarch's son still no one questions

Plutarch in authorship

the first person to tell us the annals

were written by tacitus is Saint Jerome

who was writing over 300 years after

tacitus

in comparison it is clear we have far

better attestation for the gospels than

many other ancient works that no one

questions the authorship of

why are the gospels assumed to be

anonymous when the evidence strongly

favors they never were

to be honest I have yet to see a

sufficient argument to address this from

those who wish to maintain the gospels

were originally Anonymous as Martin

hengel said let those who deny the great

age and therefore the basic originality

of the Gospel superscriptions in order

to preserve their good critical

conscious give a better explanation of

the completely unanimous and relatively

early attestation of these titles their

origin in the names of the authors

associated with them such an explanation

has yet to be given and it never will be