Most of the arguments Ferguson presents against the internal evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels are a rehashing of the typical skeptical objections which have been addressed many times over (see links to Daniel B. Wallace below). Perhaps at some point I will start a thread looking at them. However, for now and for the purposes of this thread I’d like to focus on the external evidence for the authorship of the respective texts. It’s in this respect that Ferguson, due to his back ground in Classics, presents a unique perspective. One that I will use to show that, despite Ferguson’s claim to the contrary, the external evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is very strong (or at least as strong as the evidence for Tacitus).Matthew Ferguson wrote:Coming from my academic background in Classics, I have the advantage of critically studying not only the Gospels of the New Testament, but also other Greek and Latin works from the same period. In assessing the evidence for the Gospels versus other ancient texts, it is clear to me that the majority opinion in the scholarly community is correct in its assessment that the traditional authorial attributions are spurious. To illustrate this, I will compare the evidence for the Gospels’ authors with that of a secular work, namely Tacitus’ Histories. Through looking at some of the same criteria that we can use to evaluate the authorial attributions of ancient texts, I will show why scholars have many good reasons to doubt the authors of the Gospels, while being confident in the authorship of a more solid tradition, such as what we have for a historical author like Tacitus.
Of course Ferguson, being a skeptic, attempts to argue the external evidence for Tacitus is very strong whereas, “We have precisely the opposite situation in the case of the Gospels.� But is this really an accurate assessment of the external evidence? Is the external evidence for the authorship of the Gospels really that weak by comparison to Tacitus and his Histories? One has to wonder how rigorously Ferguson has thought this through and whether he has examined the evidence for Tacitus with the same level of skepticism he applies to the external evidence for the Gospels. Especially in light of the fact that one of the main sources he appeals to for Tacitus is none other than a Christian source, Tertullian, who also makes extensive comments on the authorship of the Gospels.
Or would it be a more accurate and reasonable assessment to say the strength of the external evidence between Tacitus’ Histories and the Gospels is, for the most part, roughly about even? I think it will be become quite evident as we move through this that that skeptics like Ferguson do not apply the same level of skeptical reasoning to the authorship of secular texts from the likes of Tacitus. It seems authorship for many secular works is simply taken for granted. Once we apply to Tacitus the same hyper-skeptical reasoning often applied to the authorship of the Gospels we will see that the evidence for Tacitus’ doesn’t seem to fare any better.
This brings us to my argument. If the external evidence for the authorship of the Gospels can be shown to be at least as strong as the external evidence for Tacitus’ authorship (or said another way, if the external evidence for Tacitus can be shown to be no stronger than the evidence for the Gospels) then whatever is to be said about the strength of the external evidence for Tacitus must likewise be said of the external evidence for the Gospels. I will formulate the main argument like this:
The Main Argument:
- 1. The external evidence for Tacitus’ authorship of his Histories is very strong.
2. The Gospels’ external evidence is equally as strong as the external evidence for Tacitus’ Histories.
3. Therefore, the external evidence for the Gospels is very strong.
Thus we have, from Ferguson, the assertion that the external evidence for Tacitus is very strong. And this assertion is supported by the evidence from Pliny (a contemporary) and Tertullian (an unambiguous explicit attribution of authorship).Matthew Ferguson wrote:External Evidence:
In terms of external evidence for the authorship of Tacitus’ Histories, we have Pliny the Younger (a contemporary) writing directly to Tacitus while he was authoring a work that Pliny calls a “Historiae.� This historical work that Pliny describes was further identified as the Histories that we possess today by Tertullian (c. 200 CE), who was the next author to directly refer to it. Tertullian names Tacitus as the author in Adv. gentes 16, and refers to the “fifth book of his Histories� (quinta Historiarum). Regarding subsequent citations of Tacitus’ historical works, Mendell (Tacitus: The Man And His Work, pg. 225) explains:
Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in each century down to and including the sixth.
Thus, Tacitus was identified as the author of his Histories from the beginning of the tradition, rather than being speculated to be the author later in the tradition. This is very strong external evidence. We have precisely the opposite situation in the case of the Gospels.
Let’s now look at the support for premise (2) of the Main Argument.
(T) External evidence for Tacitus’ authorship (lived c. 56 – 120 AD, wrote c. 100 AD):
(T.1) Evidence from Pliny (lived c. 61 - 113 AD):
Ferguson argues (via Mendell) that the first attribution of authorship of the Histories to Tacitus comes down to us from one of Pliny’s letters to Tacitus.
- �I predict (and I am persuaded I shall not be deceived) that your histories will be immortal. I frankly own therefore I so much the more earnestly wish to find a place in them.� – Pliny, LXXXV to Tacitus
And that’s pretty much it from Pliny here. Two very brief and ambiguous sentences.
Firstly, let’s not forget that Pliny’s letter to Tacitus is itself, strictly speaking, anonymous. It fails to mention Pliny or Tacitus directly. It fails to provide any concrete internal evidence for authorship. How do we know Pliny even wrote this brief letter? How do we know it was intended for Tacitus? Granting its authenticity how do we know Pliny ever had direct contact with Tacitus?
Secondly, Pliny is just as likely, if not more so, using the word histories in reference to a genre and not the title of a specific work. Numerous times in his letters Pliny refers to the generic genre of history. Even Mendell concedes it isn’t clear from Pliny whether this particular quote is a reference to genre or a specific title. Further solidifying the view this is simply a reference to genre is the fact Pliny uses the very same word elsewhere in his letters to refer to the genre of history.
�[Verginius Rufus] read poems composed in his honour, he read histories of his achievements, and was himself witness of his fame among posterity.� – Pliny, XVII — To VOCONIUS ROMANUS
Further, Pliny could just as likely be referring to what we now call the Annals of Tacitus as it was of a historical genre as well. Nothing in Pliny’s letter compels us to think he was necessarily referring to The Histories attributed to Tacitus which we have today and which it seems Tertullian is alluding to.
But there are more problems with Pliny. At the time Pliny was writing this letter to Tacitus he is referring to a work by Tacitus’ which is still in progress. One which Pliny himself seems hopeful to find a place in. Pliny is not referring to a completed or published work which he has actually read. It’s not as though Tacitus handed Pliny a finished copy and said, “Here, read this history I wrote and tell me what you think.� We know from Pliny’s letters that other works from other authors were left unfinished and completed by later writers. So how do we know Tacitus even completed this history then? Perhaps Tacitus was merely contemplating a history and never got around to actually writing one. Perhaps Pliny is responding to a false rumour he had heard that Tacitus had merely intended to write a history. We just don’t know how Pliny got his information about what Tacitus was planning to write or was in the process of writing.
Lastly, in another series of anonymous letters Pliny provides to Tacitus an account of his uncle’s death in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (LXV & LXVI to Tacitus) which Pliny seems to imply Tacitus had requested for his history. But that account from Pliny is not found in the histories of Tacitus. Neither is Pliny the Younger mentioned by Tacitus despite Pliny’ pleas to Tacitus to include him. In other words, as is often argued by skeptics regarding Mark and our Greek Matthew in relation to Papias’ words, the Histories of Tacitus we have today do not reflect the expected content as described by Pliny.
At most all we can say about Pliny, assuming we grant the letter’s authenticity, is that he attests to the notion that Tacitus may have been in the process of writing something. And that something was, as far as Pliny seemed to know, some kind of work that fell into a historical genre. Not a lot to go on really. Certainly no stronger than say the words of Papias.
(T.2) Evidence from Tertullian (lived c. 155 – 240 AD, wrote c. 200 AD):
- �Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal.� – Tertullian, Apology XVI
And also:
- �Cornelius Tacitus first suggested. In the fourth book of his histories, where he is treating of the Jewish war, he begins his description with the origin of that nation, and gives his own views respecting both the origin and the name of their religion. He relates that the Jews, in their migration in the desert, when suffering for want of water, escaped by following for guides some wild asses, which they supposed to be going in quest of water after pasture, and that on this account the image of one of these animals was worshipped by the Jews.� – Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.11
And here are Tacitus’ words from the fifth book of the Histories as they have come down to us:
- � Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple.� - Tacticitus, Histories
Firstly, Tertullian is writing approximately 100 years after Tacitus which, as will see, isn’t significantly earlier than some of the external attributions we have for the Gospels (Irenaeus, Martyr, Papias, etc).
Secondly, Tertullian nowhere indicates his source regarding Tacitus. Since Tertullian seems to have been familiar with Pliny’s letters (Apology 2) it’s possible Tertullian simply assumed a connection between Pliny’s letters and Tacitus’ writings much in the same way scholars do today. After all, the same kind of argument is often made regarding Irenaeus et. al. and Papias. But if that’s the case with Tertullian then he is no more independent or reliable than say Irenaeus would be if Papias’ writings were Irenaeus’ source. The bottom line is that we have no way of establishing a direct line of communication from Tertullian back to Tacitus. Whereas we have evidence there was a personal connection with external sources of attribution for the Gospels in the case of the disciple John -> Polycarp -> Irenaeus.
Thirdly, Tertullian’s paraphrasing is quite different in the two quotes (I’ve highlighted the discrepancies). In the Apology he says the Jews were, “expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia� whereas in Ad Nationes he says the Jews, “in their migration in the desert.� In the Apology there is the important detail that the Jews “discovered a fountain.� In Ad Nationes this important detail is omitted. In the Apology the Jews, out of gratitude for having discovered water, “consecrated a head of this species of animal.� Whereas in Ad Nationes the Jews merely worshipped “the image of one of these animals.�
Fourthly, further complicating matters is that Tertullian gets the chapter right in the Apology buts get the chapter wrong in Ad Nationes. This, in conjunction with the third point above, seems to strongly suggest that Tertullian never possessed a copy of Tacitus’ Histories. But was instead merely relaying hearsay and oral traditions concerning what he had heard that Tacitus had written about the Jews. This would explain why Tertullian’s own words are contradictory, why he gets the chapter wrong in one quote, and why he does not provide a direct quote in either instance.
Fifthly, does Tertullian “explicitly cite passages in the Histories� as Ferguson claims? Well, Tertullian certainly seems to show a general awareness of the content of the passage from Tacitus. Tertullian seems to provide a paraphrasing to be sure. But certainly not an explicit citing of Tacitus as the above quotes quite clearly show. It’s painfully obvious Ferguson has overstated his case here. Or, if this reference from Tertullian is to be considered an explicit citing of Tacitus then surely we can say the same of the numerous church fathers who likewise seem to paraphrase the Gospels. Thereby opening a flood gate of early external citations of the Gospels.
Lastly, Ferguson also claims that Tertullian “refers to the [Histories] by that title.� Well, yes, Tertullian refers to the histories of Tacitus. But it’s not at all clear that he calls them the Histories as though that were the title. Like Pliny, this seems just as likely to be a reference to genre. After all, it was a history so it’s only natural Tertullian would refer to it as the histories of Tacitus. What else would Tertullian likely call a historical work with no unique title? How does Tertullian know it was written by Tacitus though? This is the salient question. Tertullian doesn’t say. Once again, no better than the external evidence for the Gospels it would seem.
In summary, the evidence for Tacitus’ authorship of the Histories boils down to, at best, two sources. The first from the contemporary Pliny. An early and ambiguous claim that Tacitus may have written something - an historical work of some kind. The second from Tertullian. His conflicting words coming around a hundred years later. This amounts to, in Ferguson’s eyes, very strong external evidence.
Now let’s compare the external evidence for the Gospels.
(G) External evidence for the Gospels: (Listed in order of approximate temporal proximity)
(G.1) Evidence from Papias (lived c. 60 - 130 AD, wrote c. 100 – 110 AD):
In a similar way Pliny was a contemporary to Tacitus there is evidence that Papias was likewise a contemporary to the Gospel writers. Remember, Pliny’s strength is argued on the basis that he was a contemporary to Tacitus. Therefore, I only need to argue for a contemporary to the authors of the Gospels to match the evidence from Pliny. Which is what we have with Papias if not more so. There is evidence that places Papias in the direct company of some of the people who are said to have written the Gospels.
“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.� - Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4
Now, it is often argued Papias’ credibility is questionable on the basis of Papias’ own words as recorded by Eusebius (Church History 3.39.4). It is argued that Papias’ source wasn’t the disciple John but was rather an unknown John which Papias calls the “presbyter (or elder) John.�
- εἰ δΠπου καὶ παÏ�ηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς Ï€Ï�εσβυτÎÏ�οις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν Ï€Ï�εσβυτÎÏ�ων ἀνÎκÏ�ινον λόγους, τί ἈνδÏ�Îας á¼¢ τί Î ÎÏ„Ï�ος εἶπεν á¼¢ τί Φίλιππος á¼¢ τί Θωμᾶς á¼¢ Ἰάκωβος á¼¢ τί Ἰωάννης á¼¢ Ματθαῖος ἤ τις ἕτεÏ�ος τῶν τοῦ κυÏ�ίου μαθητῶν á¼… τε ἈÏ�ιστίων καὶ á½� Ï€Ï�εσβÏ�τεÏ�ος Ἰωάννης, τοῦ κυÏ�ίου μαθηταί, λÎγουσιν. οá½� γὰÏ� Ï„á½° á¼�κ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον ὅσον Ï„á½° παÏ�á½° ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενοÏ�σης.’ – Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, CH 3.39.4
Secondly, it wasn’t unprecedented for π�εσβυ�τε�ος to have been used in the context of a disciple and witness to Jesus (1 Peter 5:1).
Thirdly, Papias doesn’t use any word other than π�εσβυ�τε�ος (presbuteros) when referring to the disciples Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew in the entire passage. Suggestively, however, Papias drops π�εσβυ�τε�ος when he refers to Aniston but keeps it for John in the latter part of the passage thereby seemingly making the distinction that the John mentioned was the same disciple John just mentioned. Whereas Aniston was not a disciple.
Fourthly, Papias seems to making the distinction between what the disciples who have died said (εἶπεν) and what those who are still alive say (λÎγουσιν). Thus we have the latter distinction between the Ï€Ï�εσβυÌ�τεÏ�ος John and Aniston as John was still alive, John being a disciple whereas Aniston was not.
Here’s what Papias was recorded as saying about the Gospels:
“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.�- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16
�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, as recorded by Eusebius, CH 3.39.15
(G.2) Evidence from Justin Martyr (lived c. 100 - 165 AD, wrote c. 150 AD):
�For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.� - First Apology 66
�And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.� – Dialogue with Trypho 81
�when He kept silence, and chose to return no answer to any one in the presence of Pilate; as has been declared in the memoirs of His apostles� – Dialogue with Trypho 102
�For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spoke to Him, 'You are my Son: this day have I begotten You,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, 'Worship me;' and Christ answered him, 'Get behind me, Satan: you shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve... For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass.� - Dialogue with Trypho 103
�For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, 'Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit,' as I have learned also from the memoirs. For He exhorted His disciples to surpass the pharisaic way of living, with the warning, that if they did not, they might be sure they could not be saved; and these words are recorded in the memoirs: 'Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.� – Dialogue with Trypho 105
�...through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles... And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened... A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel; and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.� – Dialogue with Trypho 106
(G.3) Evidence from the Anti-Marcionite Prologues (c. 160 - 180 AD):
�The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books.�
Some scholars have dated these prologues to around 160 – 180 AD. The prologues attribute authorship to Mark, Luke, and John. There was likely a prologue to Matthew but it has been lost to us. The prologue to John is particularly of interest as it appeals to the authority of Papias’ writings. In other words, in his writings Papias had claimed John wrote a Gospel.
(G.4) Evidence from the Muratorian fragment (c. 170 – 180 AD):
�The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it... For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence — as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain...�
(G.5) Evidence from Irenaeus (lived c. 130 - 202 AD, wrote c. 180 AD):
�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.� – Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.
As mentioned we have evidence that Irenaeus met Papias who had heard John. We also have evidence that Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew John and others who knew Jesus.
�But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.� – Against Heresies 3.3.4
�As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul...But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him the beloved, and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel...� - Against Heresies 3.14.1
(G.6) Evidence from Theophilus of Antioch (lived c. (?) – 183 AD):
�And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,� showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.�� - To Autolycus 2.22
(G.7) Evidence from Clement of Alexandria (lived c. 150 – 215 AD, wrote c. 195 AD):
"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". – as recorded by Eusebius, CH, 2.15.1
� 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. 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. This is the account of Clement.� – as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.14.5-7
Since classical scholars such as Mendell see Tertullian as a reliable enough source on the authorship of texts to use him for Tacitus it’s worthwhile to see what Tertullian also says about the Gospels.
(G.8) Evidence from Tertullian (c. 200 AD):
�We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors...Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.� – Against Marcion 4.2
"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. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning." - Against Marcion 4.5
Now, I’m not sure how it can be argued Tertullian is unreliable for the Gospels but reliable for Tacitus without some type of Special Plea fallacy.
And for good measure, Origen.
(G.9) Evidence from Origen (lived c. 184 – 253 AD, wrote c. 230 AD):
�Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.� – as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.25.4-7
For the sake of interest a few resources:
Here is a source which outlines the external evidence for Mark.
Daniel B. Wallace on the authorship of:
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
We can summarize the strength of the external evidence for the respective texts with the following table (1).
[row]Table (1)[col][center]Tacitus (c. 100 AD)[/center][col][center]Matthew (c. 80 AD)[/center][col][center]Mark (c. 70 AD)[/center][col][center]Luke (c. 80 AD)[/center][col][center]John (c. 90 AD) [/center][row]Contemporary claims authorship of [i]something[/i][col][center]Yes (Pliny)[/center][col][center]Yes (Papias)[/center][col][center]Yes (Papias)[/center][col][center]No[/center][col][center]Yes (Papias)[/center] [row]First direct unambiguous authorial attribution[col][center]Tertullian (c. 200 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus, Theophilus (c. 180 AD)[/center] [row]Approximate years to first direct unambiguous attribution[col][center]100[/center][col][center]100[/center][col][center]110[/center][col][center]100[/center][col][center]90[/center] [row]Additional claims to authorship within approx. 100 yrs.[col][center]None[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr, Marc. Pro.[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr, Muratorian fr., Marc. Pro.[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr, Muratorian fr., Marc. Pro.[/center] [row]Total claims to authorship within approx. 100 yrs.[col][center]2[/center][col][center]3[/center][col][center]4[/center][col][center]4[/center][col][center]6 [/center]
- 1. The external evidence for Tacitus’ authorship of his Histories is very strong.
2. The Gospels’ external evidence is equally as strong as the external evidence for Tacitus’ Histories.
3. Therefore, the external evidence for the Gospels is very strong.
