While it’s true that the Gospels were technically anonymous in the sense
that their original manuscripts do not explicitly name the authors, early
Christian tradition is quite strong in attributing these works to Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John. By the second century, church fathers such as Irenaeus
and Papias, who had close connections to the apostolic age, clearly identify
these figures as the authors. The idea that the names were assigned arbitrarily
or as part of a later scheme to lend credibility lacks solid historical
evidence. Unlike many apocryphal gospels, which emerged later and were quickly
recognized as pseudonymous, the four canonical Gospels were widely accepted
early on.
While there were indeed other gospels—such as those attributed to Thomas,
Judas, and Barnabas—these texts do not hold the same historical credibility as
the canonical Gospels. The apocryphal gospels typically emerged well after the
New Testament period and exhibit Gnostic or heterodox teachings that differ
significantly from the core beliefs of early Christianity. Early Christians
rejected these works precisely because they did not align with the apostolic
tradition that was passed down by those who had direct contact with Jesus or
His close followers. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated much later and
contains Gnostic elements that were foreign to the apostolic teaching.
The reason the four canonical Gospels are distinguished from these other
texts is not due to some arbitrary attachment of names but because they were
tied to recognized apostolic authority. Mark, while not an apostle himself, was
a close associate of Peter. Luke, though not one of the Twelve, was a companion
of Paul and carefully investigated the events he recorded. These were not
random assignments but deliberate connections to figures who had credible
access to eyewitness testimony.
It’s often argued that Matthew and John, being fishermen, would have been
illiterate. However, this is an oversimplification. The idea of total
illiteracy among the apostles is speculative. Even if Matthew and John had
limited formal education, it does not preclude them from composing or dictating
their Gospels later in life, as literacy and educational opportunities could
have expanded with their ministry. Additionally, writing through scribes
(amanuenses) was a common practice in the ancient world, including for those
who were literate but preferred to dictate.
As for Mark and Luke, both had backgrounds and associations that make their
authorship credible. Mark, linked to Peter, could have relied on Peter’s
firsthand accounts. Luke was a physician, and the literacy expected of his
profession supports the idea that he had the skills necessary to compile his
Gospel and Acts.
The claim that the Gospels are simply mythologized revisions of earlier
documents lacks strong historical backing. The early Christian belief in Jesus’
bodily resurrection and His earthly ministry is deeply rooted in historical
claims, not abstract or purely spiritual ideas. Paul’s letters, written before
the Gospels, affirm a real, historical Jesus who was crucified under Pontius
Pilate (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Paul’s references to eyewitnesses, including
himself, Peter, and the other apostles, show that the early Christian faith was
grounded in real events.
The idea that "early" Christians (in your view, those before the
Gospels) believed in a purely spiritual or heavenly Christ is not supported by
the evidence. The earliest Christian texts, including the letters of Paul,
consistently speak of Jesus’ earthly life, His death, and His bodily
resurrection. The Gospels then build on this foundation, providing more
detailed accounts of His ministry, teachings, and miracles. The Gospel accounts
were not later fabrications but are deeply tied to the early apostolic witness.
The Ascension of Isaiah, as you rightly point out, presents a vision
of Christ's passion and descent through the heavens. However, this text belongs
to the genre of apocalyptic literature, which is highly symbolic and visionary.
It is not intended to provide a literal, historical account of Christ’s life
and death on earth but to offer a mystical vision of heavenly realities.
Apocalyptic literature often uses symbolic language to convey theological
truths, which does not mean it reflects the everyday understanding of early
Christians about Jesus’ life and death.
Paul's references to spiritual realms or mystical experiences (such as in 2
Corinthians 12:2-4) do not suggest that he believed the passion of Jesus took
place only in the heavens. Paul’s theology consistently affirms the historical
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (Philippians 2:6-8, Romans 6:4), which is
central to his gospel message. The Ascension of Isaiah reflects one
strand of early Christian mysticism, but it does not negate the historical
realities affirmed in the canonical Gospels and the broader New Testament tradition.
You mention that what I consider “early” Christians are, in your view, the
"2nd or 3rd layer of the onion." However, the writings of Paul, the
early creeds, and the apostolic fathers demonstrate that from the earliest
stages of the Christian movement, Jesus was understood as both fully human and
fully divine. The Gospel narratives, far from being mythologized layers added
later, reflect the core beliefs that had already been firmly established by the
apostolic community.
The Gospels were not later creations meant to mythologize Jesus or place
Him in an earthly context to make Him more relatable. Rather, they faithfully
record the testimony of those who were closest to Him, rooted in both
eyewitness accounts and divine inspiration. The attempts to discredit the
Gospels based on claims of anonymity or apocryphal parallels fail to consider
the strong historical and theological evidence for their authenticity and
apostolic origin. The early Christians firmly believed in a Jesus who lived,
died, and rose again in history—not merely as a spiritual or mythical figure.
Let me offer you the following apologetic notes on the matter:The fact of divine revelation can be proven in two ways:
Among all religions, we can use motives of credibility to determine
which one is divinely revealed by God.
We can prove that:
A) The four Gospels, believed by Christians to be divinely revealed,
are authentic historical sources.
B) According to the four Gospels, Christ claimed to be God.
C) Christ demonstrated His divinity and mission through miracles and
prophecies.
D) Therefore, Christ's teachings must be considered God's revelation.
The first method would be too lengthy and is unnecessary. Since it is
certain that God cannot provide multiple, contradictory revelations, the second
method is entirely satisfactory. Therefore, we must first prove the historical
authenticity of the Gospels!
A) The Historical Authenticity of the Gospels
Like any literary work, the Gospels' historical authenticity is assured
if the following are established:
a) Contemporaneity (i.e., the Gospels were written within a lifetime of
the events they describe). In this case, the authors were either eyewitnesses
or received direct information from such witnesses. They were therefore capable
of writing the truth and could not intentionally distort the facts, as a large
number of eyewitnesses were still alive at the time of the Gospels' creation,
who would have objected.
b) Credibility (i.e., the authors did not intend to falsify).
c) Textual integrity (i.e., the Gospels we have today are essentially
identical to those originally written by their authors).
Thus, we must prove the contemporaneity, credibility, and textual
integrity of the Gospels!
a) Contemporaneity of the Gospels
The origin of any literary work can be proven by two types of
arguments: external (other writings that refer to or quote from the work) and
internal (the style, language, and content of the work itself). External
arguments are more decisive since the creation of a work is a historical fact,
and historical facts are supported by historical documents (in this case,
external arguments). Internal arguments play only a supplementary role.
External Arguments:
The Papyrus Egerton and Papyrus Rylands, found in Egypt and dating to
around 130 AD, contain literal fragmentary quotes from the Gospel of St. John.
Therefore, St. John's Gospel could not have been written after 100 AD, as it
was written in Ephesus (a historical fact), and given the primitive
transportation and communication conditions of the time, it would have taken at
least 30 years for it to be known well enough in Egypt to be quoted.
In the letter of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians (95 AD), the
Didache (95 AD), the letters of St. Ignatius the Martyr (+110 AD), and the
Shepherd of Hermas (150 AD), we find literal or content-based quotes from the
Gospels.
Bishop St. Papias (a disciple of St. John) wrote around 130 AD:
"Mark, the interpreter of Peter, accurately recorded the sayings and deeds
of the Lord, as he remembered them, but not in order... Matthew composed the
sayings in Hebrew" (Papias: "De interpretatione oraculorum
dominicorum").
Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a
disciple of St. John) wrote in his book "Adversus haereses" (174-189
AD): "When Peter and Paul preached the Gospel in Rome and founded the
Church, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. After their death, Mark, Peter's
disciple and interpreter, recorded what Peter had preached. Luke, a follower of
Paul, wrote down the Gospel that Paul preached. Then John, the Lord's disciple,
who leaned on Jesus' breast, also wrote his Gospel while residing in Ephesus in
Asia."
From the third century onwards, references to the Gospels are
countless.
It is also a fact that every heretic of the first three centuries tried
to support their teachings with the four Gospels.
This large number of external textual witnesses is particularly
valuable when we consider that Herodotus's name is first mentioned 100 years
after his death by Aristotle and then 400 years after his death by Cicero, yet
no one doubts the historical authenticity of his writings. How much more absurd
it would be to doubt the historical authenticity of the Gospels!
Internal Arguments:
St. Matthew's Gospel must have been written before the destruction of
Jerusalem (67 AD), because after 67 AD, the author could have easily separated
the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem from the one about the end of
the world (chapter 24).
Although St. Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic
("Hebrew") (see the testimonies of St. Papias and St. Irenaeus), he
later also wrote it in Greek. Only the Greek version has survived. This Greek
version of St. Matthew and the Gospel of St. Mark are full of Hebraisms, indicating
that their authors were simple, uneducated Jews. Nevertheless, both Gospels
provide detailed accounts of the places and customs of first-century Palestine.
All this requires that these two Gospels were written in the first century, as
decades after the destruction of Jerusalem, these primitive authors would have
been incapable of describing all this.
The Hebraisms in St. John's Gospel indicate that its author was a Jew.
This is further supported by the explanation of messianic ideas and Jewish customs.
The vivid character descriptions of the figures indicate that the author was an
eyewitness. The author also knows about the "secret" events in Jesus'
life (e.g., the nighttime conversation with Nicodemus). This suggests that the
author was one of the apostles. Moreover, since instead of the name of St. John
the Apostle, this Gospel always refers to "the disciple whom Jesus
loved," it follows that the author was St. John himself. In this case, the
use of this phrase is understandable (St. John's modesty explains it!), while
everything else would be inexplicable. Moreover, the last chapter explicitly
states: "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote
them."
The internal arguments also point to the first-century origin of the
Gospels. Therefore, David Strauss's (19th century) claim that the Gospels were
written around 150 AD and contain myths is untenable.
b) Credibility of the Gospels
The Gospel of St. Mark, whose author was the interpreter of St. Peter,
candidly recounts St. Peter's fall.
The Gospels also describe the human frailties of the other apostles:
they cannot keep watch with Christ for even one hour; after His arrest, they all
flee, except for Peter and John, who follow from a distance; St. Thomas doubts
Christ's resurrection; they are cowardly during the storm at sea (Mt. 8:28);
they compete for supremacy (Lk. 9:46-48); they often do not understand Christ's
words (e.g., Lk. 18:34); they harbor thoughts of revenge (Lk. 9:52-54); they
are jealous (Lk. 9:49).
The evangelists do not idealize Jesus: they describe how some people
despise Christ because He is the carpenter's son (Mt. 13:54), etc.
However, if the evangelists were frauds, as Bauer (19th century)
claimed, they would have certainly omitted these unfavorable details!
Their credibility was sealed by the fact that — with the exception of
St. John — they all gave their lives for the content of these books!
c) Textual Integrity of the Gospels
The oldest textual witnesses: Papyrus Egerton and Papyrus Rylands, the
two nearly complete Gospel texts: the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus, and the mentioned Church Fathers essentially provide the same text
as the Gospels we have today. The various textual variations (the so-called
lectio varians) mostly pertain to word order, synonymous words, and copying and
spelling errors. The approximately 10 (!) substantive lectio varians do not
affect the facts narrated by the Gospels or the essence of their teachings!
The textual integrity of the Gospels is a unique phenomenon in literary
history!
