Why are the Gospels Anonymous?
Unpacking a scholarly trope
It is often claimed that the gospels were originally anonymous. Yet this scholarly assertion may seem strange in light of the following facts:1
The earliest gospels manuscripts we have bear variations of the titles, ‘the Gospel according to so-and-so.’ While these manuscripts date from the late second or early third century, we generally take the earliest manuscripts to be a reflection of what the authors originally wrote.
There is no disagreement about the authorship of the gospels, which we might have expected if they were originally anonymous.
The Gospel attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were accepted across the scope of the Christian world, from Syria to Africa to France.
While the Gospel authors never disclose their identities within their narratives, this is not at all unusual for ancient biography.
Why, then, do most gospels scholars – from across the ideological spectrum – claim that the titles of the gospels were not original? That the gospels were, at least in that sense, ‘anonymous?’ In this post, I will unpack three reasons for this view.
1. The Gospel titles appear in the late second century
The earliest evidence we have linking the gospels to specific named authors is in the late second century, with Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (c.180 CE). At the time, it was common for various Christian groups to attribute their texts to apostolic authors.
But prior to Irenaeus, there is no clear evidence that Christian writers knew the gospels by the named titles they have today. That is, the apostolic authors – the earliest examples of patristic literature – do not describe the gospels by the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The closest we come to a title before this is a description of Justin Martyr (c. 156 CE) who refers to the ‘memoirs of the apostles’ as ‘gospels’ (Apology, 66:3), and he quotes Matthew frequently in the same work. But even Justin Martyr does not directly identify these ‘memoirs’ with the specific named figures we associate with them.
2. The Gospel titles follow the same formula
Another reason why scholars generally do not consider the named titles as original is that all four gospels have the same titles – whether the full-blown, ‘The Gospel According to X’ or its abbreviated ‘According to X.’
For most scholars, the best explanation of this is not that they individually copied one another in exactly the same way, but that they were given these titles at the same time, when they came together as a collection.
Conservative New Testament scholar, Craig Blomberg, explains:
“All known Ancient Greek manuscripts containing the beginning of one of the Gospels include the titles “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” and so on. Yet it seems improbable that all of the Gospel writers would have independently chosen to call their works “According to [so-and-so]….” Strictly speaking, then, the Gospels are anonymous.”2
3. It is not unusual for Jewish writings to be anonymous
Blomberg goes on to argue that the Gospels would have been given titles to distinguish themselves from each another. He follows Martin Hengel in thinking that this would have happened very early on – that is, when more than one Gospel was in circulation and they were easily mistaken for one another.3
But as we have noted: early Christians before the late second century do not appear to have known the Gospels by their traditional titles. And perhaps this is not so surprising. Many Jewish writings – just like the canonical Gospels – also do not have named titles. Rather, their opening sentence functions as a general title.4
Arguably, like the anonymous books of the biblical authors, this anonymity served to lend the Gospels a sense of gravitas and authority. It is not an individual – be it even Matthew or John – who is sharing their perspective. Rather, this text gives us the definitive account of the person of Jesus. E.P. Sanders explains:
“The [Gospel] authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More important, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopaedia article today, implicitly claimed complete reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written, ‘this is my version’ instead of ‘this is what Jesus and did..”5
Are the Gospels truly anonymous?
In this post, I have unpacked why scholars often think that the Gospel titles are not original. That the gospels were published as ‘anonymous’ writings.
But of course, this is not necessarily to suggest that the original audiences of the gospels had no idea who wrote them, or to say that the eventual names which were chosen – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – were plucked out of thin air.
We know, at least for Mark and Matthew, that these names were not chosen at random. Rather, there were traditions that Mark had heard the preaching of Peter, and Matthew had written down the logia of the Lord in Hebrew.
Now, there are disputes as to whether these earlier traditions have anything to do with our gospels today. (You may wish to see my treatments of Matthew and Mark.) Yet far as the titles are concerned, the case for anonymity is relatively strong.
These facts persuade New Testament scholar Brant Pitre that the Gospels were not anonymous. See his The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence (Image, 2016).
Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs (B&H, 2016), 11.
See the very thorough case against the Gospels’ anonymity in Martin Hengel, Studies in Mark (SCM, 1985), 64-84.
See, for example, William Davies and Dale Allison’s comparisons of Matthew’s opening sentence with various prophetic, didactic and apocalyptic texts in Judaism, which also open with a titular sentence introducing the work’s content (e.g. Nahum, 1.1). See The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. ICC, vol. 1 (T&T Clark, 1988), 151-152.
E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin, 1993), 66.
Thanks again for another informative piece. Really enjoy you lifting multiple perspectives but still weighing in your conclusions in a reasonable way. Keep ’em coming. Highly enjoyable. Enjoy your summer!