The Early Church Fathers on the Authorship of the NT Gospels:

Historical Evidence for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Ron Jones
The Titus Institute

The primary historical evidence we have about Jesus Christ comes from the four Gospels of
the New Testament. As is well-known, there are many views today on who wrote the gospels.
These views can be divided into two broad categories. One category is the view that the Gospels
have been written by the disciples of Jesus whose names appear on the Greek manuscripts,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and published by them. This is the minority view among NT
scholars. The other category encompasses a variety of views based on the conclusion that they
were written by others. This category represents the majority of current New Testament scholars
with a variety of theories on the identity of these individuals or groups who wrote and edited the
Gospels.
So how can we attempt to establish who wrote the Gospels? Authorship of ancient works is
established by using two lines of evidence, external and internal. The external evidence involves
primarily the manuscript tradition and the testimony of others. The internal evidence consists of
such issues as style, ideas, self-allusion, and verbal parallelism of the Gospel works which reflect
the author. The analysis of internal evidence seems to dominate the discussion of the historical
evidence set forth for establishing authors and editors other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John.
In this paper I want to focus on the external evidence of testimony, the testimony of those
who were in a position to know who wrote the NT Gospels. The primary external evidence of
testimony comes from the church leaders of the first through third centuries C.E., commonly
known as the Early Church Fathers. In my opinion, many scholars today minimize the clear
testimony of these leaders. One of the major proposals of the scholars that do not accept the
authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is that the gospels were circulated anonymously
and that the early church later in the second century added credible names because of their high
value to the church. However, that conclusion is not based on the historical evidence which
comes from the writings of these early church leaders.
It is my contention that the writings of the early church fathers when taken together present a
consistent picture of who wrote the NT Gospels and the general circumstances of their
publications. Their writings demonstrate that they believed that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
wrote and published these Gospels. This is consistent with the names on the Greek manuscripts
that are extant. My approach is to share a coherent narrative of the writing, publication, and
distribution of these Gospels by these four men derived from the statements of the Early Church
Fathers. Along with this narrative will be extensive quotations from their writings that evidence
the narrative so you can decide for yourself if the narrative is consistent with the evidence. All
quotations can be found online at www.ccel.org unless otherwise indicated.
Why is this important for the Christian? In these four gospels we are presented with a
coherent and consistent picture of Jesus of Nazareth. He was the Son of God sent by God his
Father to become a man and redeem mankind by dying on the cross for their sins. There are
differences in detail in the four gospels regarding the various situations Jesus encountered and
the words Jesus used as each writer selected what he would record and translated Jesus’ words
from the Aramaic, but there is no difference in what the four gospels portray about the nature and
mission of Jesus.
As Christians, we are completely dependent on these gospels in our understanding of who
Jesus was and what he did for us. The Christian church throughout the ages has based what they
believe on this portrait of Jesus. Our hope of eternal life and eternal blessing is dependent on
them. How do we know that they are reliable? How do we know that what they portray about
Jesus is accurate?
I believe the answer to these questions is centered in the authors of the four gospels. If the
authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then they were eye-witnesses of Jesus or those
who had access to eye-witnesses. They would also be apostles or close associates of the apostles
who were appointed by Jesus himself to take his message to the world. This would give the
gospels, their biographies of Jesus, strong credibility and reliability.
The Gospels and Acts show that Jesus was very purposeful regarding how his teachings
would be spread accurately throughout the world. He did not leave the preservation and
dissemination of his teachings to a haphazard process for the church after his death. This is
contrary to the picture many scholars paint of confused Christians competing with each other
over which view on the nature of Christ would be accepted and what documents should be
authoritative among many gospel writings. The picture that emerges from the New Testament is
an intentional process by Jesus himself of establishing how his teachings would be spread
accurately in the world through thirteen apostles who were appointed by him for this crucial task.

The Appointment of the Apostles by Jesus

We know that this was not a haphazard process because all four gospels clearly relate the
appointment by Jesus of the twelve disciples as apostles and Acts relates the appointment of a
disciple to take the place of Judas and the appointment of Paul as the thirteenth apostle to the
Gentiles. No other disciples had the credentials of the apostles. These individuals had been
appointed by Jesus himself to be his apostles sent out to the world. Jesus appointed them to be
with him and preach his life and teachings to others. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke
clearly state that Jesus appointed twelve disciples. They also are careful to give their names. John
also mentions the twelve apostles.
Mark 3:13-19 states, “And he went up into a mountain and called to him those whom he
wanted and they came to him. And he appointed twelve that they should be with him and that he
might send them forth to preach and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out demons.
He appointed the twelve: Simon (he surnamed Peter), James the son of Zebedee and John the
brother of James (he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, “The Sons of Thunder”), Andrew,
Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the
Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot (who also betrayed him).”
Notice in v.16-19, the twelve apostles are named. There were twelve specific individuals who
were appointed by Jesus at this time. There was no confusion among the followers of Christ who
these twelve were and what their authority was.
Then Mark gives us what Jesus planned to do with these men. First, they would travel with
him in his ministry. It says, “that they should be with him…” That means that they were
appointed to be with him on a daily basis and minister with him. They would be eye-witnesses of
everything he said and did while he was ministering on earth and eye-witnesses of his death,
resurrection, and ascension into heaven. They also were appointed to preach his true identity,
life, and teachings. Verse 14 also states, “that he might send them forth to preach…” They were
to go and take his message to the world as eyewitnesses. They were to simply preach what they
had seen and heard.
The credentials of the apostles are clearly shown at the time the eleven apostles decided to
choose another man to take the place of Judas Iscariot bringing their number back to twelve. In
Acts 1:21-22 criteria are given that must be met before someone could be selected. Luke records
Peter’s words, “Therefore of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord
Jesus went in and out among us beginning from the baptism of John to that same day that he was
taken up from us, one must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Peter says that he must be a man who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry
at the baptism of John until after the resurrection, and one who had seen the resurrected Jesus.
Two men were brought forward who met that criteria and Matthias was chosen. Not any one
could become an apostle, only one who had met the criteria and had been specially chosen by
Jesus or in this case by his apostles who represented Jesus. There were only twelve chosen for
the ministry to the Jews.
Then Jesus appointed one more, Paul, on the Damascus Road to be the thirteenth apostle. He
was appointed personally by the resurrected Jesus Christ to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Luke
records Paul description of his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road in Acts 26:13-18.
First, Jesus promised Paul he would receive direct revelation from God (v.16), “…for I have
appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a minister and a witness both of these things
which you have seen, and of those things which I will appear to you.”
Second, Jesus told him that he would be an apostle called to the Gentiles specifically (v.17),
“delivering you from your people and the Gentiles - to whom I now send you to open their eyes
and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God so that they may
receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith in me.”
Third, Paul embraced his apostolic calling (v.20), “And immediately he preached Christ in the
synagogues that he is the Son of God.”
The ministry of the twelve and Paul as apostles of Jesus Christ was to proclaim Jesus in both
verbal and written form. Because they were appointed by Jesus and taught by Jesus they were
united in testimony and it formed a coherent body of “orthodox” doctrine regarding the true
identity and mission of Jesus.
Richard Bauckham in his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony, writes of the authority of the apostles,
“If they were close companions of Jesus throughout his ministry, as the Gospels claim they
were, and if they were also, as most scholars agree, the first leaders of the mother church in
Jerusalem and of its initial outreach elsewhere, we should certainly expect them to have been
authoritative transmitters of the traditions of Jesus and to have had something like an official
status for their formulations of those traditions…it is also for our purposes crucial to note that the
Twelve were disciples of Jesus the teacher, appointed in the first place to be "with him" (Mark
3:14) and to learn from both his teaching and his company, and thereby qualified for the mission
of continuing his mission…It is not difficult to imagine that their role in the earliest Christian
community would include that of authoritative transmitters of the sayings of Jesus and
authoritative eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus' history. If any group in the earliest community
was responsible for some kind of formulation and authorization of a body of Jesus traditions, the
Twelve are the most obviously likely to have been that group.”1
 This authoritative role of the apostles can be seen at the very birth of the early church in Acts
2:42 where Luke records the early followers of Jesus “continued steadfastly in the apostles'
doctrine.” After more than three thousand turned to faith in Jesus from the sermon of Peter the
apostle, Luke shares with us what they did to strengthen their faith. They listened to, understood,
and trusted the teachings of the apostles. Even at this very early stage it was recognized that the
teachings of the apostles was a united body of truth and authoritative for the followers of Jesus.
As we shall see, according to the testimony of the Early Church Fathers four men wrote the
NT Gospels. Two, Matthew and John, were apostles. Two were close associates of the apostles.
Mark was a close associate of both Paul and Peter. He is mentioned by Paul along with Luke in a
list of his fellow-workers in his letter to Philemon (v.24). Peter writes in his first epistle (1 Peter
5:13), “The church that is at Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so
does my son Mark.” Eusebius, in his Church History (2:15:2) shares that Clement and Papias
both comment on this Mark in Peter’s first letter as being the Mark who wrote the Gospel. As we
will see, Papias shares that Mark wrote his gospel from what Peter had preached about Christ.
Luke was a close associate of Paul the apostle. Paul mentions him in Colossians 4:14 when
he writes, “Our dear friend, Luke, the doctor and Demas sends greetings.” He is mentioned again
in Philemon 24 and in Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy 4:11 when he writes, “Only Luke is with me.”
So Mark and Luke were well known members of the apostolic circle who were closely
associated with two of the most respected apostles, Peter and Paul. When they wrote gospels
they were accepted as having the stamp of approval of those apostles.
The early church from the beginning was committed to the apostles as the only ones who had
authority to speak and write for Jesus. The early church accepted the four NT gospels because
they were written by apostles or associates of apostles and were in agreement with apostolic
teaching. They agreed with the apostles and their authority given to them by Jesus. In their view,
the apostles were the only authoritative eyewitnesses of Jesus. Only the four gospels, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John fit these criteria. Other gospels and short stories may have been written,
but not collected and preserved because they were not written by these authoritative
eyewitnesses.
This can be seen in the earliest church leaders whose writings have come down to us after the
apostles. Clement, Bishop of Rome (c.95 C.E.) wrote in his letter to the Corinthians, “The
apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ has done so
from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.” (1 Clement 42)
Clement gives the early church’s view of the authority of the thirteen apostles. They have
been sent out by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel. He also compares the exclusive authority of
Christ to preach the gospel from God and the exclusive authority of the apostles to preach the
gospel from Christ. This was a consistent opinion of the church from the beginning.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c.105 C.E.), wrote in his letter to the Magnesians, “Study,
therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles.” (Magnesians 13)
Ignatius brings out the perception of the early church of the unity between what Jesus taught and
what his apostles taught. They taught the same doctrines.
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c. 117), wrote in his letter to the Philippians, “Let us then serve
Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He himself has commanded us, and as the apostles
who preached the Gospel to us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the
Lord.” (Philippians 6) Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John) shows the unity between
the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament with Jesus himself.
They gave one revelation from God centered in Jesus.
 Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c.180), wrote in his work, Against Heresies, “For the Lord of all
gave to his apostles the power of the gospel through whom also we have known the truth, that is,
the doctrine of the Son of God.” (Against Heresies 3 Preface) and “The apostles, likewise being
disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood." (Against Heresies 5.1)
The early church was committed to the one united doctrine of the apostles, which was their
standard of truth and orthodoxy. Irenaeus and Tertullian, two of the early church’s most
prominent leaders at the end of the second century wrote works defending the doctrines of Jesus
and the apostles against Gnostic heresies that had arisen which contradicted those teachings.
Because these Gnostic teachings were propagated in the second century a long time after the
apostles had died, they took their stand on the fact that they, as the followers of Jesus, held fast to
the doctrines which he and the apostles themselves gave and the church carefully preserved.
Irenaeus wrote, “In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the
apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof
that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the
apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (Against Heresies 3.3)
Tertullian, a church teacher and apologist (c.207), wrote, “Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent
the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those
whom Christ appointed, for ‘no man knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomever the
Son will reveal Him.’ Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the
apostles, whom He sent forth to preach…” (Prescription Against Heresies 21) and “The apostles
were ignorant of nothing, and did not preach any (doctrines) which contradicted one another.
(Prescription Against Heresies 25)
All these early church leaders reflect one testimony of the early church that the thirteen
apostles appointed by Jesus alone held the authority to speak and write for Jesus which must be
accepted as authoritative by the followers of Jesus. Because of this authority, the early church
collected and preserved the writings of these men and those who worked closely with them. The
four NT Gospels were the only gospels written in the first century by apostles or close associates
of apostles. That is why they were preserved and other works similar to the gospels were not.
The early church formed a united testimony to the authorship and truthfulness of these gospels.

The Universal Testimony to the Authors

In establishing authorship of an ancient work the testimony of those who attribute the work
to a particular author provides important historical evidence. When others who are in a position
to know claim that the author attached to the extant manuscript wrote that work it is strong
evidence of authorship. These people are in a position to know if they lived at the same time,
knew people who lived at the same time or referred to the testimony of people who lived at the
same time. The early church leaders, referred to by Christians as the “Early Church Fathers” fit
this description. They made many references to the authors of the NT Gospels in their writings
Eusebius, the Church historian (early 4th c.), gives us the names of three church fathers who
ministered in the generation following the apostles at the turn of the first century, Polycarp
(Bishop of Smyrna), Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis) and Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch). Historians
have given Ignatius’ death as a martyr as occurring around 110 CE. So we can date these
Christian leaders as ministering around this time. This is early. If John the Apostle died in the
90’s C.E., then it is not surprising that these leaders knew John the Apostle, either personally or
knew those who knew him personally.
 In his Church History (3.36.1-2), Eusebius mentions that all three men ministered in the same
time period. He wrote, “At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence
in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had
seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became
well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to
Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.”
These men ministered in cities close to Ephesus where the Apostle John lived and ministered.
Polycarp was in Smyrna just north of Ephesus. Papias was in Hierapolis just northeast of
Ephesus. Ignatius was in Antioch which was further southeast of Ephesus, but on a regular travel
route to Ephesus. Polycarp and Papias were disciples of the Apostle John. Ignatius would have
come under the teachings of John if he had not met him as John’s influence as the last living
apostle was wide and powerful in that whole area. John, as an apostle, would have been in a
position to know who authored the gospels and other writings of the NT. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that if John knew, these men knew as well.
The earliest reference to Matthew and Mark as authors of their respective gospels comes
from Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis who wrote about 110-120 C.E. Eusebius in his Church
History (3.39.16) quotes Papias who wrote about Matthew publishing a gospel. He states, “But
concerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows: ‘So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the
Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able.’” Papias calls the Gospel of
Matthew, the “oracles” referring to his gospel as a work which records the words and deeds of
Jesus. Papias definitely states that Matthew wrote a gospel. He also notes that his gospel was
originally written in the Hebrew dialect which would have actually referred to Aramaic. Later, as
we shall see, Eusebius indicates that it was translated into Greek by Matthew.
Papias also talks about the Gospel of Mark. He is quoted by Eusebius in his Church History
(3.39.15) also. Eusebius states, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down
accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who
adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected
account of the Lord’s discourses so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some
things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things
which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”
Papias tells us several important things about Mark and his gospel. First, Mark was Peter’s
interpreter, that is, Mark took what Peter was preaching about Jesus and wrote it down. Second,
it was an accurate account. Third, since Peter did not put the words and deeds of Christ in
chronological order when he preached about Christ, Mark didn’t either. Mark was careful about
recording Peter’s preaching so that he did not omit anything and did not falsify anything.
Papias is immensely significant, not only because he is early, but because he was a disciple
of the Apostle John. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (180 C.E.) mentions this in his Against Heresies
(5.33.4) when he writes, “And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer
of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled
by him.”
This is powerful testimony to the authorship of Matthew and Mark. Papias was a disciple of
the Apostle John who was a disciple of Jesus himself. If anyone would know who wrote the
Gospels besides the apostles, it would obviously be the disciples of the apostles, like Papias.
Another early testimony to the authorship of the gospels is Justin Martyr, Christian
Philosopher and Apologist. Justin Martyr lived in the middle of the second century and wrote
around 150 C.E. As an apologist, he wrote for unbelievers. In order to help them understand the
nature of the gospels as writings, Justin calls the gospels the “memoirs of the apostles.” This
brings out in a simple way how the gospels were viewed by the early church. They were the
records of those who were with Jesus and were eye-witnesses of his life and ministry. This
clearly implies the apostolic authorship and authority of the gospels.
In his works, Justin quotes from all four gospels. In his first Apology (66), he writes, “For the
apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto
us what was enjoined upon them...” Then Justin describes the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
He also writes in his first Apology (67), “On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or
in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the
prophets are read as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased the president verbally
instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.”
Justin quotes Matthew 11:27 and 16:21 in his Dialogue with Trypho 100. He quotes Mark
3:17 in his Dialogue with Trypho 106. He quotes Luke 22:44 in Trypho 103 and Luke 23:46 in
Trypho 105 and he quotes John 3:3 in his first Apology 61. Although Justin does not specifically
mention the name of any author of the gospels, he clearly shows that they were written by
apostles and their close associates.
By c.180 C.E. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, gives the origin of the four Gospels and their
authors. In his Against Heresies (3.1.1), Irenaeus writes, “Matthew also issued a written Gospel
among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and
laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the
companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the
disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during
his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John so his testimony
has great credibility. He was in a position to get his knowledge from Polycarp who got his
knowledge from the apostle John. This is the earliest most definitive statement of who wrote the
gospels and shows that by 180 C.E. we have solid historical evidence that early church leaders
confirmed that the four NT Gospels were indeed written by Matthew and John, two apostles and
Mark, a close associate of Peter and Luke, a close associate of Paul, two other apostles.
This means that all the gospels were written in the first century in the same generation as
Jesus because they were written by authors who lived in the first century in the same generation
as Jesus. These three are the earliest testimonies of the authorship of the four NT Gospels. Their
testimony alone is enough evidence. To show that this was the universal testimony of the church,
I want to bring in the testimonies of two other church leaders.
Tertullian, a Christian lawyer and church leader, c. 200 C.E. mentioned Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John as the authors of the four NT Gospels. Tertullian in his Against Marcion 4.2 (4.2)
states, “We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its
authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord himself this office of publishing the gospel... Of the
apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and
Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to
the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to
fulfill the law and the prophets.”
Later in the same work (4.5) he writes, "The same authority of the apostolic churches will
afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and
according to their usage. I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew while that which Mark
published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the
Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish
belong to their masters."
Origen, a Christian scholar of the third century (c.245 C.E.), further testifies to the authorship
of the gospels. He wrote that the four NT Gospels were authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John and were the only Gospels accepted in the church of God.
In his Commentary on Matthew (1) he relates, “Concerning the four Gospels which alone are
uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel
according to Matthew, who was at one time a tax collector and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus
Christ, was written first and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the
converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according
to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, ‘The
church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you and so does Mark my son.’ And
third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the
converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, is that according to John.”
Aside from the united testimony of these men, the early church at large was unanimous in
attributing the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and never disputed the authorship
of the four gospels named on the manuscripts. There was universal agreement among all early
church leaders in diverse geographical locations that these men wrote the four gospels. No other
names have ever been brought forward as authors of the gospel by the early church. It has always
been unanimous.
Timothy McGrew points this out when he writes, “The attestation of authorship is
significant, early, and geographically diverse. We find it from all over, Tertullian in Carthage,
Clement in Alexandria, Irenaeus in France, and Papias in Asia Minor. There is no rival tradition
for the authorship of any of the gospels.”2 Carson, Moo, and Morrison also write about the
significance of this unanimity explaining Martin Hengel’s view, “The unanimity of the
attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything other than the assumption that
the titles were part of the works from the beginning. It is inconceivable, he [Hengel] argues, that
the Gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century
suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If they had originally been
anonymous, then surely there would have been some variation in second-century attributions (as
was the case with some of the second-century apocryphal gospels).”3

Publication of the Gospel of Matthew

The early church fathers give testimony that Matthew the apostle wrote first a Hebrew
version and then a Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew. He most likely wrote an original
briefer version of his gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic) for the Hebrew Christians in Palestine and
then wrote an expanded version of his gospel in Greek for Christians everywhere. This is the
consistent testimony of the early church fathers.
Robert Thomas and F. David Farnell concur with this view that the early church fathers
taught that Matthew wrote both a Hebrew and Greek version of his Gospel when they write,
“Without exception they held that the apostle Matthew wrote the canonical Matthew and that he
wrote it first in a Semitic language.”4
 Eusebius (325 C.E.) in his work, Questiones Ad Marinum, states his belief (which reflects
the early church’s) that Matthew himself translated the Hebrew Matthew into Greek. In
comparing Matthew 28:1 and John 20:1, he writes, “For on the one hand the evangelist Matthew
transmitted the gospel in the Hebrew language. On the other hand, having changed it to the
Greek language, he said ‘the hour drawing towards dawn unto the Lord’s day, after the close of
the Sabbath.’”5
When the early church fathers mention that Matthew’s gospel was published first among the
gospels, they mention the original version of the gospel written by Matthew in Hebrew
(Aramaic) because this was the first edition of Matthew’s gospel. Matthew wrote and published
his gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic) first and later translated it into Greek. Although the original
language of Matthew’s Gospel is called Hebrew by the early church fathers, it was most likely
Aramaic. It is widely accepted among scholars that Aramaic was the common language of Israel
at that time.6
The Greek version must have been translated soon afterwards by Matthew because the
Hebrew Matthew had so limited an impact and the Greek Matthew had such a wide impact. Also,
there is no specific reference given regarding when the Greek Matthew was written and
published. It was most likely within a few years.
In examining the writings of the church fathers, it can be seen that when taken together, they
give the general historical circumstances that were known about the publication of the Gospel of
Matthew. Eusebius gives the circumstances and necessity of the writing of the Hebrew Matthew.
Papias gives the reason the Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek (same basic reason as the
Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint) and Irenaeus gives the time period.
Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius give us the purpose.
The early church fathers considered the Gospel of Matthew as one work translated into two
languages which it was. This is implied in Papias’ comments on the Gospel of Matthew. Papias
(quoted by Eusebius in his Church History 3.16) refers to the Hebrew Matthew and gives a clue
to why it was translated into Greek. He said, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in
the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”
Papias indicates that Matthew had written his gospel called by him the “Oracles” first in
Hebrew (Aramaic) and that anyone who did not speak and write Hebrew (Aramaic) translated it
“as best he could”. Although there are various interpretations of this statement, this is the one
accepted by many scholars. This tells us not only that Matthew’s gospel was first written to
Hebrew (Aramaic) speaking Jewish-Christians probably in Judea, but also that it was not
understood by Greek speaking Jews, thus implying the need for Matthew’s Greek version.
When Papias mentioned the Hebrew origin of Matthew, he must have been assuming the
existence of the Greek Matthew because he wrote a work entitled “Exposition of the Oracles of
the Lord.” Eusebius testifies to Papias’ work in his Church History (3.39.1) when he states,
“There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title ‘Expositions of Oracles of the Lord.’"
This most likely was a commentary on the Greek Gospel of Matthew since Papias called
Matthew’s writing the “oracles” and wrote an exposition on the “Oracles of the Lord.” Eusebius
in his reference to Papias is clearly referring to the Gospel of Matthew. We also know from
Irenaeus that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew so it is reasonable to assume that Papias
is referring to that Gospel. However, Papias, like most Gentile Christians at that time, didn’t
know Hebrew (Aramaic) so he could only have been commenting in his work on the Greek
Matthew.
 Irenaeus and Origen give the audience and purpose Matthew wrote his gospel. It was written
for the Jewish Christians that they might understand how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy
thus proving that he was indeed the Messiah and Savior of Israel. Irenaeus writes (Fragments of
the Lost Writings 29), “The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews. For they laid
particular stress upon the fact that Christ [should be] of the seed of David. Matthew also, who
had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing
proof that Christ is of the seed of David; and therefore he commences with [an account of] His
genealogy.”
Origen, in two of his writings, gives the audience to whom Matthew was writing. They were
Jews who had embraced faith in Jesus. In his Commentary on Matthew (Book 1), he states,
“Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under
heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a
publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in
the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism.”
Also, in his Commentary on John (6.17) he writes, “These, then, are the parallel passages of
the four; let us try to see as clearly as we can what is the purport of each and wherein they differ
from each other. And we will begin with Matthew, who is reported by tradition to have published
his Gospel before the others, to the Hebrews, those, namely, of the circumcision who believed.”
Eusebius gives the general circumstances of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel in his Church
History (3.24.6) when he states, “For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when
he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and
thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.” Eusebius
shares with his readers that before Matthew left for an extended leave from the Hebrews, most
likely the Hebrew (Aramaic) speaking Jews in Jerusalem and the surrounding region, he wrote a
gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic) and left it for them to have while he was gone. Therefore,
Matthew’s first version/edition of his gospel was written and published just before he left to
spread the gospel to other lands.
This very likely was after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In Acts 15:6 Luke records the
holding of the Jerusalem Council, “And the apostles and elders came together to consider this
matter.” The apostles were not summoned from all over the world to attend this meeting. They
were already there in Jerusalem. The decision was made that the gospel given by Jesus Christ did
not include embracing circumcision and the Law, but only faith in the Lord. Once this was
settled, the mission to the Gentiles to the remotest part of the earth by the twelve apostles (minus
James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John who had died) after 15 years or so of filling Judea
and Samaria with the gospel could begin. It is estimated by scholars that this council was about
49 or 50 C.E.
Therefore Matthew who soon departed to go to other lands would have published his first
version of the gospel in Hebrew to the Christian Jews in Judea before he left in 49 or 50 C.E.
Later, it is likely that after Matthew was away evangelizing the Jews and the Gentiles outside of
Palestine that he ran into non-Hebrew speaking Jews who could not read Hebrew or understand
it. He then wrote his gospel in the Greek language. This would have been necessary as Hebrew
(Aramaic) was primarily used in Palestine and only in certain pockets of population elsewhere.
So many of the Jews outside Israel did not know Hebrew (Aramaic) that the Septuagint was
written around 250 B.C. to provide the Jews the Old Testament Scriptures in Greek which they
could understand. It is not hard to see that Matthew recognized the need to provide his gospel to
his Greek speaking Jewish converts and sometime later translated and expanded his earlier
Hebrew gospel into the Greek gospel that spread throughout the world. Matthew’s Greek Gospel
was the only one we have evidence of being used by the church outside of Israel.

Publication of the Gospel of Mark

The universal testimony of the early church fathers is that Mark, the close associate of Peter
the apostle, wrote the Gospel of Mark from the preaching of Peter and published it at Rome.
Carson and Moo explain the significance of this testimony, “Moreover, no dissenting voice from
the early church regarding the authorship of the second gospel is found…While we must not
uncritically accept everything that early Christian writers say about the origins of the New
Testament, we should not reject what they say without good reason.”7
Eusebius in his Church History (3.39.14-15) writes of Papias (c.120 A.D.), an early church
father, quoting what Papias stated about the origin of the Gospel of Mark. He relates, “But now
we must add to the words of his, which we have already quoted, the tradition which he gives in
regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. ‘This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of
the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward,
as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no
intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no
error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing,
not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.’ These
things are related by Papias concerning Mark.”
Papias calls Mark “Peter’s interpreter” and then explains what he means. Mark “wrote down
accurately what he remembered that Jesus said and did,” but it was not from his own knowledge
of Jesus, but from Peter’s. David Black comments on what “interpreter” meant, “The almost
invariable use by the fathers of the word hermeneutes (Latin interpret) to describe Mark’s
function proclaims that he was not the author in the normal sense, but rather the “go-between” or
“interpreter” of Peter…The term hermeneutes signifies someone who passes on the message
received from another without alteration or modification, that is, a “go-between” or “recorder.”
In its original sense it cannot mean an editor or one who “interprets” in the sense of explaining
someone’s message to someone else. Applied to Mark, it means that he was no more than the
instrument of communication between Peter and his audience.”8
Papias’ main point is that Mark did not always follow the chronological order of the events
of the life of Christ because Peter as he preached did not. Yet Mark’s account is accurate in
recounting what he remembered from Peter. C. Clifton Black further explains, “To assert that
‘Mark did not miss the mark in thus writing down individual items as he remembered them’
practically presupposes a criticism, prior to Papias and perhaps even prior to John the Presbyter,
that Mark indeed had missed the mark. At least as far as Papias is concerned, Mark has been
challenged for his report's incompleteness and lack of order. In both respects Mark could be
acquitted: Mark had followed and faithfully interpreted not the Lord but, rather Peter and the
latter's teaching had been piecemeal and catch-as-catch can.
Mark, on the other hand, was as comprehensive in his coverage as his primary source would
permit: ‘[he left] nothing out of what he heard.’ If Mark's account seems lacking or disordered,
then that actually redounds to the fidelity of his reporting and attests to a premeditated decision
‘to falsify nothing in [what he had heard].’ Therefore, ‘Mark did not miss the mark in writing
down individual items as he remembered them’ (emphasis added). Why? Because ‘[Mark left]
out nothing of what he had heard’ (again, my emphasis).
For Papias, Mark's very disorganization was the clearest, positive evidence that his literary
endeavor had falsified nothing in an oral tradition that was equally disordered…We may be in
slightly better position to say that, for Papias, the primary criterion satisfied by Mark was his
faithful recollection, dependable remembrance and conveyance, of dominical traditions that were
associated with Peter.”9
Papias’ early comments about Mark being the interpreter of Peter and thus writing down
Peter’s gospel was common knowledge in the church and repeated over and over by the early
church fathers. As we saw previously, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen confirms Papias’
statement about Mark’s relationship with Peter and the relationship of his written gospel with
Peter’s oral gospel.
Like Matthew’s Gospel, the early church knew the basic circumstances of the publication of
Mark’s gospel. Mark did not write his gospel secretly nor publish it anonymously. When the
various testimonies of the early church fathers regarding its publication are harmonized the
picture given below emerges. This historical explanation gives credibility to all the evidence
from the written testimony of the early church fathers quoted in this article.
Eusebius records two statements by Clement of Alexandria in his Church History. In the first
one, he writes of a false teacher named Simon who came to Rome during the reign of Claudius to
spread false doctrine. At first, he achieved great success, but it didn’t last because the apostle
Peter was sent by God to defend the truth against Simon. So blessed were the Roman Christians
by Peter’s teaching that they asked Mark, Peter’s close associate, to write down Peter’s gospel
about Jesus. This, says Eusebius, is recorded by Clement in one of his works, called
Hypotyposes (Outlines) and also by Papias.
In Eusebius’ Church History Book 2.15:1-2, he says “And thus when the divine word
[through Peter the apostle] had made its home among them [the Christians at Rome], the power
of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so
greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied
with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel,
but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose
Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been
orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had
thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. And they say that
Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was
pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the
purpose of being used in the churches.
Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the
bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which
they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure,
Babylon, as he does in the following words: ‘The church that is at Babylon, elected together with
you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.’”
In the last paragraph of Clement’s statement above, we are told that the Mark who wrote the
gospel was none other than the same Mark who was with Peter in Rome and mentioned in
Peter’s first epistle. Peter’s mention of “Babylon” refers to the city of Rome according to
Clement and Papias.
 Eusebius’ second comment and quote from Clement of Alexandria’s Hypotyposes comes in
his Church History (6.14.5-10). In it Eusebius says that Clement repeats the basic circumstances
of the publication of Mark’s gospel and directly states he wrote it in Rome.
“Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the
order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says,
were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. 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.”
There is one more statement by Clement that comes directly from a Latin translation of his
Hypotyposes by Cassiodorus (called Adumbrationes in epistolas canonicas in its Latin
translation). He is commenting on 1 Peter 5:13 and relates, “Mark, the follower of Peter, while
Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and
uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the
things that had been said, wrote the gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said
by Peter…”10
Clement of Alexandria has the most detail regarding the origin of Mark. It is not surprising
since Clement was bishop of Alexandria. Eusebius records that Mark was the first bishop of
Alexandria. Mark most likely spoke about the circumstances surrounding the writing of his
gospel and it was handed down to the succeeding bishops, one of which was Clement.
Eusebius in his Church History (2.16.1) records, “And they say that this Mark was the first
that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first
established churches in Alexandria.”
Jerome in his Illustrious Men (8) wrote about Mark, “So, taking the gospel which he himself
composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so
admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his
example.”
Jerome, in his Preface to the Commentary on Matthew, stated, “The second is Mark, the
amanuensis of the Apostle Peter, and first bishop of the Church of Alexandria. He did not
himself see our Lord and Saviour, but he related the matter of his Master’s preaching with more
regard to minute detail than to historical sequence.”
Epiphanius, in his Panarion (51.6.10.13) wrote, “And following immediately after Matthew,
Mark was entrusted by the holy Peter in Rome to set out the gospel; and when he had written it
he was sent by the holy Peter to the region of Egypt.”11
In the above quotes, the early church fathers make it clear that Mark wrote his gospel at the
request of certain Christians at Rome. Clement of Alexandria gives some detail about how it
happened. In one quote he mentions who requested it and in another quote he indicates that Mark
gave his gospel to those who specifically requested it. These quotes imply that Mark’s gospel
was originally a private edition for them and the church at Rome, which Mark gave to those who
requested it. Clement of Alexandria writes that Mark was “asked” by “some of Caesar’s knights
to…let them have a record of the things that had been said.”
Rome had four classes of people. The lowest class was the slaves. The next class were the
plebeians (free common people). The second highest class were the equestrians (knights) who
attained that rank by their wealth. The highest class were the patricians (nobles) of Rome who
were part of that group by birth.
 Certain Roman Christians who were of the equestrian order and thus wealthy requested Mark
to write a gospel for them. They most likely funded the necessary papyrus rolls and copies made
by scribes for them. This was a normal way author’s works were published in the ancient Roman
world. A “patron” or “patrons” funded the publishing of an author’s works. Mark wrote the
gospel and then had copies made for them at their expense. It was a private edition for the church
at Rome.
David Black comments on Clements’ identification of the social position of the Christians
who requested Mark to write his gospel, “Clement of Alexandria gives some idea of the occasion
of Peter’s talks when he says that they took place in Rome before an audience of “Caesar’s
knights,” members of the Roman Praetorium, and therefore an audience containing a number of
high government officials.”12
When Peter heard about the private edition, at first he was neutral, but then by a revelation
from God he endorsed it for use among the churches. In the passage above from Eusebius’
Church History (6.14.5-7), Clement says “when Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade
nor encouraged it.” This implies that Peter was probably not in Rome at the time of the writing.
Otherwise, he would have known about it as it was being written because he and Mark were
close associates. When he did learn of it, he was neutral about it. That is, he personally had not
asked for it but didn’t have a problem with those who did.
In Eusebius’s Church History (2.15.2) Eusebius tells us that Clement also wrote, “And they
say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been
done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his
authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.”
This second statement about a more positive reaction by Peter than his neutral reaction seem
to be contradictory by many scholars, but in reality a credible and intelligent church leader like
Clement is not going to write two contradictory statements in the same work. They are easily
reconciled by carefully harmonizing his statements in this way.
Clement’s second statement about Peter’s approval was most likely given for the distribution
of Mark’s Gospel to all the churches. This was the publishing of the public edition of his gospel.
It is likely that after Peter found out about the private edition, he was at first neutral, but then
received a revelation from the Spirit. After his revelation, Peter himself may have suggested that
Mark publish his gospel to the churches. Therefore, Mark’s gospel had two publications, one for
the private edition and one later for the public edition. This view that Mark wrote a private
edition first, then a public one for the churches is the view of David Alan Black set forth in his
book, Why Four Gospels?.13
This is important when it comes to the order of the gospels. In Eusebius’ above quote from
Clement (Church History, 6.14.5-7), Clement says that the tradition of the earliest presbyters (the
ones who were appointed by the apostles) was that “the Gospels containing the genealogies were
written first.” This means that Matthew and Luke were written first. Other church fathers say that
Matthew and Mark were written before Luke and John. If there were, in fact, two publications
then both statements are true depending on which publication one is talking about. Mark was
published privately before Luke, but published publicly (for all the churches) after Luke. Thus
two seemingly contradictory statements can be simply harmonized.
All the evidence taken together demonstrates that Peter was alive when Mark was written and
that he was not in Rome with Mark when he first wrote his gospel, but later found out that he
wrote it. As seen above, Irenaeus records in his work, Against Heresies (3.1.1) that “after their
departure [Peter and Paul’s], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us
in writing what had been preached by Peter.”
The word “departure” normally refers to leaving a place. Irenaeus would then be saying that
after Peter and Paul left Rome most likely on missionary journeys, Mark wrote his gospel. This
harmonizes with Peter not knowing about the private edition of Mark’s gospel until he returned
to Rome.
E. Earle Ellis concurs with the meaning of “departure” in Irenaeus as leaving Rome when he
writes, “Irenaeus speaks, then, only of the transmission of Mark's Gospel. He is thinking not of
the deaths of Peter and Paul but rather of their departure on further missionary travels after an
initial evangelization of Rome, i.e. after Paul's release in c. AD 63 and after an earlier visit and
departure of Peter.”14
Some scholars believe that the meaning of “departure” in the Greek in Irenaeus refers to their
martyrdom. Even if “departed” means death it can still fit with the evidence. Mark wrote the
gospel while Peter was still alive as a private edition. Peter found out about it and at first was
neutral. Then Peter had a revelation and endorsed it. Before Mark could copy it and begin
circulating it among the churches, Peter was martyred. Therefore, the gospel of Mark was
published for the churches after Peter’s (and Paul’s) death.
These two editions can also explain the two endings of Mark’s gospel that have come down
to us. The shorter ending was probably the one Mark wrote for the private edition, but when
Mark published the public edition, he added a longer more explanatory ending.15
David Black comments on the Mark’s authorship of his gospel, “Thus Clement, and other
ancient witnesses, understood Mark's function to have been simply that of reporting Peter's
words with total accuracy. That is, Mark was not the author of the Gospel but simply the agent of
its publication, because all of this material came from Peter's own memories of what Jesus had
said and done and because what Mark did was to retrieve faithfully, as Peter's amanuensis, what
the latter had spoken-on certain special occasions. These are the basic historical facts around
which all of the internal evidence will be found to fit exactly.”16

Publication of the Gospel of Luke

Like Matthew and Mark, the universal testimony of the early church fathers is that Luke, the
close associate of Paul the apostle, wrote the Gospel of Luke. D. Edmond Hiebert sums up the
strength of testimony to Luke’s authorship, “The uniform testimony of Christian tradition, dating
back to early times, names Luke as the author of the third gospel.”17 Donald Guthrie agrees, “At
no time were any doubts raised regarding this attribution to Luke, and certainly no alternatives
were mooted. The tradition could hardly be stronger.”18 As we have seen, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and Origen affirm the author of the third Gospel as Luke, the disciple and traveling companion
of Paul.
Paul was the apostle appointed by Jesus Christ himself to go to the Gentiles with the saving
knowledge of the gospel. It would be very natural for Paul to want to provide a gospel to
converts from the Gentiles, which was particularly relevant to them. Matthew had written his
gospel particularly to the Jews in their style of writing and emphasizing the truths from the life
and ministry of Christ relevant to Jews such as Jesus’ fulfilment of OT prophecy. Luke was
educated and a physician and wrote his gospel as a historian carefully researching and sifting out
the evidence as he states in his prologue in Luke 1:1-4.
 As we have seen, Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew 1 writes about Luke’s audience,
“And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for
the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.”
Notice Origen’s statement that Luke’s Gospel was commended by Paul. Paul not only
approved Luke’s gospel, but was most likely very instrumental in motivating Luke to write it. It
would be useful to Paul for the growth of the Gentiles to whom he ministered as well as those
throughout the world.
Eusebius, in his Church History (3.4.7) identifies the author of the Gospel of Luke as the
physician companion of Paul and author also of the Book of Acts, “But Luke, who was of
Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul
and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that
spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he
testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the
word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. The
other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but
from what he had seen himself.”
Later, Eusebius gives Luke’s purpose in writing (Church History 3.24.15) “But as for Luke,
in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states
that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which
he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their
uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to
which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his
acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.”
Jerome, in his Illustrious Men (7), gives a somewhat lengthy introduction to Luke, “Luke a
physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in the Greek language. An
adherent of the apostle Paul, and companion of all his journeying, he wrote a Gospel, concerning
which the same Paul says, ‘We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all
the churches’ and to the Colossians ‘Luke the beloved physician salutes you,’ and to Timothy
‘Luke only is with me.’
He also wrote another excellent volume to which he prefixed the title Acts of the Apostles, a
history which extends to the second year of Paul’s sojourn at Rome, that is to the fourth year of
Nero, from which we learn that the book was composed in that same city…Some suppose that
whenever Paul in his epistle says ‘according to my gospel’ he means the book of Luke and that
Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the
flesh, but also by other apostles. This he too at the beginning of his work declares, saying ‘Even
as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word.’ So he wrote the gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the Apostles as he
himself had seen.”
In understanding the order of the publication of the Gospels, it seems best to conclude that
the Gospel of Luke was published after the private edition of the Gospel of Mark, but before the
public edition. In the article on the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, it was stated that the early
church fathers seem to indicate that Mark was published privately first in Rome and then
published publicly for all the churches with Peter’s approval.
Clement of Alexandria shares that the gospels with the genealogies were published first
(Matthew and Luke). Eusebius quotes from Clement of Alexandria’s Hypotyposes in his Church
History (6.14.5) where Clement mentions the order of the gospels, “Again, in the same books,
Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the
following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first.”
However, Irenaeus, as seen above, puts the publishing of Mark’s gospel after Matthew’s but
before Luke’s. These two statements can easily be reconciled when one understands that Mark’s
gospel had two editions and Luke’s Gospel was published between them. So Luke’s Gospel was
published after the private edition of the Gospel of Mark, but before the public edition.
The universal and undisputed testimony of the early church was that the Gospel that is
attributed to Luke was written by Luke, the physician and companion of Paul.

Publication of the Gospel of John

The universal testimony of the early church fathers is that John the Apostle, the beloved
disciple, wrote and published the Gospel that bears his name after the other three gospels while
he was living in Ephesus. Craig Keener states the position of the early church fathers,
“Consonant with what we find from the internal evidence, church tradition identifies the author
of the Fourth Gospel with the Apostle John.”19
The Gospel of John was composed by John at the urging of his Christian friends to
complement the Synoptic Gospels by providing a Gospel that was focused on the spiritual truths
taught by Jesus and demonstrated in his life and ministry. Clement of Alexandria gives details
surrounding the original writing of the Gospel by John the Apostle. This is preserved by
Eusebius in his Church History (6.14.7). After Eusebius enumerates what Clement says about the
origins of the first three gospels, he writes, “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.”
A “spiritual gospel” was a gospel focused on what Jesus Christ said and did that revealed the
theological truths of his true identity and purpose. John’s Gospel was not meant to tread the same
ground as the other three gospels, but to record many other statements and actions of Jesus
according to John’s purpose. This is what we would expect from the aged apostle who had spent
many years teaching the truths about Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Henry Thiessen, writes, “Primarily John had the leading and enabling of the Holy Spirit in
the writing of his Gospel; his intimate friends and fellow-disciples in Asia Minor may, however,
also have had a part in encouraging him to write it. There was, no doubt, also the felt need that
the Church should have a fuller commentary on the work and teachings of Jesus than had
hitherto been produced. At any rate, this Gospel is just such an intermingling of interpretation
with narrative materials. There must have been the feeling that certain incidents and addresses
that are omitted by the Synoptists ought to be added. It would seem, then, that a combination of
all these factors led to the writing of the Fourth Gospel.”20
Irenaeus gives another purpose for the Gospel of John. It was to defend the truth of the true
nature of Jesus Christ as the God-man. It was being attacked by Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans.
Cerinthus was an early heretic who denied the deity of Jesus, proclaiming that the Christ spirit
entered the human Jesus at his baptism, guided him in his ministry, but left him at the
crucifixion. The letter of 1 John also was written to combat this heresy. The Nicolaitans were a
heretical group mentioned in the Book of Revelation also written by John.
Irenaeus brings this out in his work “Against Heresies” (3.11.1) when he states, “John, the
disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove
that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by
those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that ‘knowledge’ falsely so called, that he might
confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word;
and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another.”
Ireneaus mentions the general time period of his death in “Against Heresies” (3.3.5), “those
who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed
to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.” Trajan was
Roman Emperor from 98 to 117 C.E. So John lived up until Trajan’s reign and died sometime
during that period. Eusebius in his Church History (3.31.2-3) gives a statement written by
Polycrates (c.130-196 C.E.) regarding John’s death, “The time of John’s death has also been
given in a general way, but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates (who was
bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor, bishop of Rome. In this epistle he
mentions him together with the apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words:
‘For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the
coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints.
Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged
virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus;
and moreover John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the
Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. He also sleeps at Ephesus.’”
Hendriksen in his Commentary on the Gospel of John explains the significance of this quote
by Polycrates, “Polycrates, writing about this same time, was a bishop of the church at Ephesus.
The place is significant and so is the date. At Ephesus at this early date (approximately 196 C.E.)
the traditions with respect to the apostle John who had lived here were still fresh. Polycrates
remarks: ‘Seven of my relatives were bishops and I am the eighth.’”21
The universal and undisputed testimony of the early church was that the fourth gospel was
written by John the Apostle who is described in the Gospel of John as the disciple whom Jesus
loved and who leaned on his breast.

Dates of the Publication of the Gospels

The most important issue to establish for the four NT Gospels is not to establish the dates
when the gospels were published, but to establish who wrote them. Once it can be established
that disciples contemporaneous with Jesus wrote the gospels, then we know that the gospels were
published in the lifetime of those disciples and in the same generation as Jesus himself. They
were written and published, therefore, in the first century C.E.
We have already shown that the early church fathers’ writings demonstrate that the four NT
Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and published by them for the churches
of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the gospels were published in their lifetimes in the first century.
The exact dates cannot be established and is not really that important, but I believe we can
give the general time periods (decades) indicated by the historical evidence. The authors of the
gospels and the general time periods when the gospels were published were known by the
church. However, their focus was always on the authors.
We will begin with the synoptic gospels and then give the general time period of John’s
gospel which was written much later than the first three. The dates of the publishing of the
Synoptic Gospels as we shall see can be generally established by their connection with Peter and
Paul’s ministry in Rome and the subsequent death of these apostles at the hands of the Emperor
Nero.
 Based on the testimony of the church fathers, Matthew most likely issued his gospel
originally in the Hebrew dialect in the 50’s C.E. for the Jewish Christians in Israel while Peter
was in Rome ministering and then later sometime in the late 50’s or early 60’s he wrote his
Greek version while Peter and Paul were still ministering there. Then Mark published the private
edition of his gospel for the church at Rome after Matthew’s. Luke then published his gospel.
Mark then published a public edition of his gospel for the churches at large which was published
after Peter and Paul subsequently left Rome. Later while John was living in Ephesus possibly in
the late 80’s C.E. or early 90’s, he published his gospel.
Peter was in Rome in the 50’s C.E. preaching and founding the church. Paul came to Rome
in the early 60’s C.E. as a prisoner. Peter and Paul preached together in Rome, but probably only
for a short time in the early 60’s. They often travelled to and from Rome on missionary journeys
at different times during the 60’s. Luke and Mark were also in Rome in the 60’s A.D. with Paul
and Peter.
Eusebius tells us that Peter came to Rome during the reign of Claudius to defend the faith
against a heretic named Simon Magus. The reign of Claudius was from 41 C.E. to 54 C.E. Peter
probably came to Rome in the early 50’s. Eusebius writes, in his Church History (2.14.4-6),
“Immediately the above-mentioned impostor [Simon Magus]…fled and made a great journey
across the sea from the East to the West…coming to the city of Rome…he was in a short time so
successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of
a statue. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good
and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of
the apostles…to Rome against this great corrupter of life.”
Justin Martyr in his First Apology (26) also writes of Simon coming to Rome during the
reign of Claudius, “There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the
reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of
the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by
you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore
this inscription, in the language of Rome, “Simoni Deo Sancto.”
If Peter came to Rome when Claudius was Emperor, it was most likely in the early 50’s C.E
after the Jerusalem Council. The apostles were, by the nature of their ministry, travelers
constantly going on missionary journeys no matter where they settled. So Peter would not have
stayed in Rome for that whole period. That would have been his home base of operations.
Most scholars estimate that Paul came to Rome around 60 C.E. as a prisoner. This
approximate date is based on his interaction with the procurators in the Book of Acts. In Acts 24-
27, Paul first appears before Antonius Felix, the Roman Procurator, and is confined for the last
two years of Felix’ procuratorship. Then Porcius Festus takes over as procurator and Paul is
brought before him soon after he takes office. Paul appeals to Caesar which gives Paul the right
to plead his case before the Emperor as a Roman citizen. He sets sail for Rome in the first few
months of Festus’ reign.
Since Festus was procurator from approximately 59 or 60 C.E. to his death in 62 Paul was
most likely sent to Rome in 59 or 60 C.E. F.F. Bruce writes on the date of Festus’
procuratorship, “Festus appears to have governed Judaea from A.D. 59 to his death in 62…A
more reliable pointer to the date of Felix's replacement has been found in a change in the Judean
provincial coinage attested for Nero's fifth year (A.D. 58-59); this coin issue ‘is more likely to be
the work of a new procurator than of an outgoing one who had already minted a large issue.’”22
 Luke tells us in Acts 28:30-31 that for two years Paul was in Rome and was able to receive
visitors and continue his preaching of the Gospel (and building an apostolic foundation of the
church). This would then be from 60 to 62 C.E. Paul was martyred sometime between 64 and 68
C.E. (See below). This leaves a period of two to six years that Paul was either in Rome or
travelling from Rome or both. Eusebius tells us that Paul was released from prison, went on a
missionary journey, and later returned to Rome where he was martyred for the gospel.
Eusebius writes of this in his Church History (2.22.1-2), “Festus was sent by Nero to be
Felix’s successor. Under him Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome.
Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite naturally calls his
fellow-prisoner. And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles brought his history to a close at
this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and
preached the word of God without restraint. Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the
apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and that upon coming to the same city a
second time he suffered martyrdom.”
When Paul returned, he ministered in Rome until persecution broke out under Nero in 64
C.E. Paul was caught up in that persecution and was martyred sometime between 64 and 68 C.E.
Peter came to Rome during the reign of Claudius and eventually was martyred in Rome
sometime between 64 C.E. and 68 C.E. as Paul was. If Peter came to Rome in the early 50’s
C.E., then he could have been in Rome during the period between 50 and 64-68 C.E. It is very
likely that Peter did not stay in Rome for the whole period of time. His ministry as an apostle
demanded that he travel and evangelize and establish churches in the faith.
Irenaeus in his Against Heresies (3.3.2) implies that Peter and Paul were in Rome in the same
general time period when he wrote that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome. He mentions
“that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient and universally
known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and
Paul.” Irenaeus is not saying that Peter and Paul started the church in Rome where there was
none. In Acts 2:10-11 at Pentecost (30’s A.D.) there were “visitors from Rome (both Jews and
converts to Judaism).” Those who heard Peter preach and turned to Jesus Christ took their faith
back to Rome and started a church. Also, Paul wrote to the Romans before he ever arrived there
so the church had been formed. But what Peter and Paul did was to “found” it in the sense of
“build a foundation” of solid apostolic doctrine so that it became an apostolic church, one who
had been saturated with the Biblical teaching personally by apostles.
This “laying of the foundation of the church” most likely began with Peter coming to Rome
before 54 C.E. and continued through the time Paul came to Rome around 60 C.E. through the
time period they were in Rome together as they travelled back and forth from Rome until their
martyrdom at Rome.
Eusebius tells us that that Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome under the Emperor Nero. In
his Church History (2.25.1, 5-8), he states, “When the government of Nero was now firmly
established, he began to plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against the
religion of the God of the universe…Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s
chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul
was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of
Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that
place even to the present day.” And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated
by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: ‘You have
thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and
Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught
together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.’”
Philip Schaff comments on the preposition “at” (“at the same time”) in the last sentence of
the above statement which is in Greek “kata.” He writes, “The ‘kata’ allows some margin in time
and does not necessarily imply the same day.”23 So Eusebius tells us that Peter and Paul were
martyred during the same time period of Nero’s persecution of the Christians. Nero reigned from
54 to 68 C.E. Most scholars agree that Nero’s persecution of the Christians began when Nero
burned Rome and blamed the Christians in 64 C.E. Phillip Schaff writes, “We learn from
Tacitus, Ann. XV. 39, that Nero was suspected to be the author of the great Roman
conflagration, which took place in 64 A.D. and that to avert this suspicion from himself he
accused the Christians of the deed, and the terrible Neronian persecution which Tacitus describes
so fully was the result.”24 In the quote from Eusebius above, Peter and Paul were martyred
during the persecution that broke out in 64 C.E.
The previous discussion forms the background to understanding comments by Irenaeus
regarding the origin of the gospels. Irenaeus gives the general time period when the synoptic
gospels were written in his Against Heresies (3.1.1), centered around the time that Peter and Paul
were in Rome. He states, “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their
own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the
Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to
us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a
book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had
leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
“While Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church”
definitely refers to a time period when both were in Rome around the same time which would
have been between 60 and 64-68 C.E. It could also refer to whole time period that began with
Peter’s arrival in Rome in the early 50’s and ending with their death between 64-68 C.E.
As we have seen in the previous chapters of this book, Irenaeus shares that Matthew was
written first in Hebrew (Aramaic) and Eusebius makes it clear that he translated his Hebrew
Gospel into Greek.
Most likely Matthew issued his gospel originally in the Hebrew dialect in the 50’s A.D. for
the Jewish Christians in Israel while Peter was in Rome ministering and then later sometime in
the late 50’s or early 60’s he wrote his Greek version while Peter and Paul were ministering
there.
Then Mark published his gospel after Matthew’s. Earlier, we gave evidence for Mark
publishing first a private edition for Christians at Rome who had requested it while Peter was
away from Rome. When Peter returned he gave his approval for a public edition of the gospel for
the churches at large, which was published after Peter and Paul subsequently left Rome or had
been martyred.
Irenaeus, then states that Luke wrote his Gospel. Irenaeus does not give a time designation
such as “then” regarding the publishing of Luke’s gospel. He does not indicate that Luke’s
gospel was published after Mark’s. As we have seen, this is in agreement with other early
evidence that Luke was published after the private edition of Mark’s Gospel, but before the
public edition.
So, as we have seen from Irenaeus’ statement synthesized with other evidence from the early
church fathers, Matthew’s Hebrew version was published in the 50’s with the Greek version
being published in the late 50’s to early 60’s C.E. Mark and Luke were published in the 60’s
A.D.
Irenaeus does not tell us exactly when John’s gospel was published, but he does tell us that it
was published when John was a resident in Ephesus. Ireneaus mentions the general time period
of John’s death in his Against Heresies (3.3.5), “those who were conversant in Asia with John,
the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he
remained among them up to the times of Trajan.” We can make an educated guess of sometime
between 80 and 99 C.E. John was in Jerusalem at least up until the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
John probably left Jerusalem in the 60’s sometime before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. So he
would have written it after 70 C.E.
The Gospel had to be written before John died. John died during the reign of Trajan who
ruled from 98-117 C.E. This gives us 70 to 99 C.E. However, the Gospel had to be written long
enough after the fall of Jerusalem that John doesn’t even mention it. Perhaps it was a decade or
more. So sometime between 80 and 99 C.E. is probable. Isolating the exact date is not important.
What is important is that it was written by John the apostle in the generation of the life of Jesus
and the eye-witnesses of Jesus.
In conclusion, the historical literary evidence can establish the general time periods of the
publishing of the gospels. However, establishing the dates is not as important as establishing the
authors. Once the authors are established, we then know it was written in their lifetimes, which is
the crucial information we need. The early church seemed unconcerned about dates and only
concerned with the authors. That is what was important to the early church and what is important
to Christians today. The four NT Gospels were collected by the church in the first century
because they were written by the apostles Matthew and John, and by Mark, the close associate of
the apostle Peter and by Luke, the close associate of the apostle Paul.
No other gospel was collected because no other apostle or close associate of an apostle wrote
a gospel. All other works which have been discovered and called gospels came in the second
century and were too late to have been written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.
Thus they were never accepted by the early church fathers and the apostolic churches because
they were not written by apostles or their close associates.

END NOTES

1. Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, William B. Eerdman’s Publishing, Grand
Rapids, MI, 2006. 94-96
2. Timothy McGrew, Who Wrote the Gospels? Lecture, Apologetics315.com, 2/8/12
3. Carson, D.A., Moo, Douglas J., Morris, Leon, An Introduction to the New Testament,
Zondervan Publishing, 1992, 66
4. Thomas, Robert L. and Farnell, F. David, Jesus Crisis, Kregel Publications, 1998, 43
5. Translated by the author from the Greek text in The Inspiration of Holy Scripture: Its
Nature and Proof, William Lee, Published by R. Carter & Brothers, 1860, 470
6. Jamieson, Robert, Fausset A.R., Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on
the Whole Bible, 1871, Introduction to Matthew
7. Carson, D.A., Moo, Douglas J., An Introduction to the New Testament, Zondervan, 2005,
p.174
8. Black, David Alan, Why Four Gospels?, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI. 2001, 44
 9. Black, C. Clifton, Mark Images of an Apostolic Interpreter, Fortress Press, 2001, 92-94

10. Trans. by David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels?, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids,
MI. 2001, 38
11. Translated by Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III,
Trans. By Frank Williams, Brill, 1994, p.30-31
12. Black, David Alan, 45
13. Ibid., 45
14. Ellis, E. Earle, The Making of the New Testament Documents, Brill Academic
Publishers, Inc., Boston, 2002, 362
15. Compare David Alan Black’s comment on this, 30
16. Black, David Alan, 77
17. Hiebert, D. Edmond, An Introduction to the New Testament, Moody Press, Chicago,
1975, 114-115
18. Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Introduction, Inter-Varsity Press, Third Edition
Revised, 1970, 99
19. Keener, Craig, The Gospel of John V.1, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA , 2003,
91
20. Thiessen, Henry, Introduction to the New Testament, Hendricksen Publishers, Inc., 2002,
172
21. Hendriksen, William, Commentary on John, William B. Erdman’s publishing, 1963
22. Bruce, F.F., The Book of Acts, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids, MI., 1988, 449 Footnote 44
23. Comment by Philip Schaff on 2.25.4, from The Early Church Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff,
William B. Eerdman’s Publishing, Reprint 2001 at CCEL Internet Library, Footnote 556
24. Comment by Philip Schaff on 2.25.8 from The Early Church Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff,
William B. Eerdman’s Publishing, Reprint 2001 at CCEL Internet Library, Footnote 539