AI Concludes the Gospels Were Written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

AI Discovers the Bible

A robot studying the Bible

One of the most frequent attacks against the credibility of the Bible targets the Gospels. The claim, made by some of the most notable names in biblical scholarship, asserts that we don’t know who wrote the Gospels. According to them, the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn’t appear until the late second century, generations after the time of Jesus.

If this is true, it would greatly damage the credibility of the Gospels. Why should we trust their accounts of Jesus, if we don’t even know who wrote them?

But on the other hand, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were always known as the authors, then the credibility of the Gospels is greatly enhanced. If the Gospels were always known as the work of Jesus’ Apostles and their scribes, then we have every reason to trust them.

What happens when we dig into the evidence?

What happens when we turn the power of AI to analyze the situation?

Now, of course, with AI we must be careful. We must remove any hint of bias and seek only the facts, if we are ever to arrive at the truth.

To search this out, focusing on the facts free of bias, I wrote this prompt:

Summarize the evidence for the authorships of the four Gospels. Compile the evidence from two directions. First, compile and present the evidence for the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: find the earliest manuscripts with the author’s names, find the earliest references to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being the authors in historical writings, and so on. Second, compile and present the evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the authors: find any historical disputes about the authorship from the first few centuries AD, find any historical reference to the Gospels as anonymous from the first few centuries AD, find any manuscripts of the Gospels with a different name attached, and so on. Present your findings in a report and evaluate which side is better attested by the evidence. Do not bias your answer in any particular direction. Answer based only on the evidence.

This was Grok’s response:

---

---

Report on the Evidence for the Authorship of the Four Gospels

This report compiles and evaluates evidence concerning the authorship of the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—from two perspectives: evidence supporting the traditional authorship by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and evidence suggesting they were not the authors. The analysis draws on manuscript evidence, early historical references, and disputes from the first few centuries AD, aiming to assess which position is better attested without introducing bias.

---

Part 1: Evidence Supporting the Traditional Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Earliest Manuscripts with Author’s Names

• Matthew: The earliest known manuscript fragment explicitly attributing authorship to Matthew is Papyrus 4 (P4), dated to around 150–200 AD. While fragmentary, it is associated with the Gospel of Matthew and aligns with later codices like Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360 AD), which titles it "Kata Matthaion" ("According to Matthew").

• Mark: Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360 AD) is among the earliest complete manuscripts, labeling the text "Kata Markon" ("According to Mark"). Earlier fragments, such as Papyrus 45 (P45, c. 200–250 AD), are part of the Gospel but lack titles due to their fragmentary nature; however, no alternative attribution exists.

• Luke: Papyrus 75 (P75, c. 175–225 AD) is the earliest substantial manuscript of Luke, bearing the title "Kata Loukan" ("According to Luke") at its conclusion. Codex Vaticanus (c. 300–325 AD) also consistently attributes it to Luke.

• John: Papyrus 66 (P66, c. 150–200 AD) is the earliest significant manuscript of John, with the title "Kata Ioannen" ("According to John") preserved. Codex Sinaiticus reinforces this attribution.

• Observation: No surviving manuscript from the 2nd century onward attributes these Gospels to different authors or omits authorship when titles are present. The uniformity across languages (Greek, Latin, Coptic) strengthens this consistency.

Earliest Historical References to Traditional Authorship

• Papias of Hierapolis (c. 95–120 AD): Recorded by Eusebius (Church History, 3.39.15–16, c. 325 AD), Papias states that Matthew wrote a collection of Jesus’ sayings "in the Hebrew dialect" and that Mark, as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down what Peter preached. Though Papias’ descriptions differ slightly from the canonical Gospels, they are the earliest external attestations linking these names to Gospel-like texts.

• Justin Martyr (c. 120–150 AD): In his First Apology (c. 155 AD), Justin refers to the Gospels as "memoirs of the apostles," implying apostolic authorship without naming them explicitly, though later tradition aligns this with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

• Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD): In Against Heresies (3.1.1, c. 180 AD), Irenaeus explicitly attributes the Gospels to Matthew (an apostle), Mark (Peter’s companion), Luke (Paul’s companion), and John (the Apostle). This is the earliest comprehensive claim of traditional authorship.

• Muratorian Fragment (c. 175–200 AD): This Latin document lists Luke and John as authors of their respective Gospels and implies two others (likely Matthew and Mark, though the text is damaged), reflecting early acceptance of these names.

• Tertullian (c. 160–220 AD): In Against Marcion (4.2, c. 207 AD), Tertullian affirms that Matthew and John were apostles, Mark was Peter’s interpreter, and Luke was Paul’s associate, solidifying the tradition.

• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): Cited by Eusebius (Church History, 6.14.5–7), Clement states that Matthew and John, as apostles, wrote their Gospels, while Mark and Luke did so based on apostolic testimony.

Additional Supporting Evidence

• Uniformity Across Regions: By the late 2nd century, writers from diverse locations (e.g., Irenaeus in Gaul, Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in Egypt) consistently attribute the Gospels to these four figures, suggesting a widely accepted tradition.

• Lack of Rival Names: Unlike the Epistle to the Hebrews, which saw varied authorship guesses (e.g., Paul, Barnabas), no early source assigns different authors to these Gospels, indicating a stable tradition.

• Choice of Authors: The selection of Mark and Luke—non-apostles—over more prominent figures like Peter suggests authenticity, as forgers might have chosen more authoritative names, as seen in later apocryphal works (e.g., Gospel of Peter).

---

Part 2: Evidence Against the Traditional Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Historical Disputes About Authorship (First Few Centuries AD)

• No Explicit Disputes: There are no surviving records from the first three centuries AD of Christians explicitly denying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. Early critics like Celsus (c. 178 AD, per Origen’s Against Celsus) attack the content but not the authorship, implying acceptance of the traditional names even among adversaries.

• Faustus (c. 400 AD): The Manichaean Faustus, cited by Augustine (Against Faustus, 17.2), questions the apostolic origin of the Gospels, suggesting they were not written by the named authors but by later followers. However, this is late (4th century) and lacks supporting evidence from earlier centuries, reducing its weight as a contemporary dispute.

Historical References to the Gospels as Anonymous (First Few Centuries AD)

• Internal Anonymity: The Gospel texts themselves do not explicitly name their authors within the narrative, unlike Paul’s epistles. This has led some modern scholars to infer initial anonymity, though no ancient source from the first few centuries directly calls them anonymous.

• Papias’ Ambiguity (c. 95–120 AD): Papias’ description of Matthew’s "sayings in Hebrew" and Mark’s reliance on Peter do not perfectly match the canonical Gospels, prompting speculation that the texts he knew were different, potentially anonymous precursors. However, this is interpretive, not a direct claim of anonymity.

• Justin Martyr (c. 120–150 AD): His reference to "memoirs of the apostles" lacks specific names, which some interpret as evidence that the Gospels circulated without fixed authorship in the mid-2nd century. Yet, this is inconclusive, as he does not deny the traditional authors.

Manuscripts with Different Names or No Names

• No Variant Authorship: No extant manuscript from the first few centuries attributes the Gospels to different authors. All titled copies (e.g., P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus) bear the traditional names when titles are preserved.

• Fragmentary Evidence: Early fragments like Papyrus 1 (P1, c. 200–250 AD) for Matthew or Papyrus 45 (P45) for Mark lack titles due to their small size, not because they were anonymous. The absence of titles in these scraps does not prove they lacked authorship originally.

• Contrast with Hebrews: The Epistle to the Hebrews, genuinely anonymous, shows varied authorship guesses in early sources (e.g., Origen, Church History 6.25.14, says "God only knows"), but no such variation exists for the Gospels.

Additional Evidence Against Traditional Authorship

• Literacy and Language: Matthew (a tax collector) and John (a fisherman) were likely Aramaic-speaking Jews with limited Greek literacy, yet the Gospels are composed in fluent Koine Greek, suggesting possible scribal or editorial involvement.

• Synoptic Dependence: Matthew and Luke’s reliance on Mark (per the Marcan Priority hypothesis) and a hypothetical "Q" source imply they may be compilations rather than direct eyewitness accounts, potentially distancing them from the named authors.

• Late Composition: Scholarly estimates place the Gospels between 65–110 AD, potentially after the deaths of some traditional authors (e.g., Matthew and John), raising questions about their direct involvement.

---

Evaluation: Which Side Is Better Attested by the Evidence?

• Strength of Evidence for Traditional Authorship:

  • Manuscript Consistency: From the earliest titled manuscripts (P66, P75, c. 150–225 AD), the Gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with no variants or anonymous copies among surviving texts.

  • Early Testimony: Papias (c. 95–120 AD) provides the earliest external link, followed by a robust tradition from Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) onward, spanning multiple regions without contradiction.

  • Lack of Alternatives: The absence of competing authorship claims in the first three centuries strongly suggests an established tradition from an early date.

• Strength of Evidence Against Traditional Authorship:

  • Lack of Direct Challenges: No contemporary disputes or claims of anonymity exist from the first few centuries; Faustus’ critique is late and unsupported by earlier evidence.

  • Manuscript Silence: While fragments lack titles, no evidence shows they circulated without names or with different ones, unlike Hebrews.

  • Indirect Arguments: Internal anonymity, language issues, and source dependence are suggestive but lack concrete ancient corroboration, relying heavily on modern inference.

• Conclusion: The evidence supporting the traditional authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is better attested. The consistent manuscript tradition from the 2nd century, coupled with widespread early historical references and the absence of rival claims, outweighs the speculative and indirect arguments against it. While internal anonymity and compositional complexities raise valid questions, they do not constitute positive evidence of alternative authorship or anonymity in the ancient record. Thus, based solely on the historical and manuscript evidence, the traditional authorship holds stronger ground.

---